(  H 1  \  I :  s  1 :    I XDEMNIT  Y. 


The  U  -r  under  any  national  or  international  obliga- 

:y   the   Chinese    government   our    of  the   National 

\  ed  by  ir.>  subjects  in  this  country  at  the 


mob  o 


SPEECH 


OF 


JOHN   H    MITCHELL, 


IN   THE 


UNITED    STATES    SENATE, 


JUNE  IST  AND  3D,  1886. 


WASHINGTON 

Ife  - 


Bancroft  Library 

SPEECH 


HON.   JOHN  H.  MITCHELL; 


June  1,  1886. 
INDEMNITY   TO   CHINESE   SUBJECTS. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  should  like  to  call  up  and  pass  a  bill  that  was 
reported  at  the  same  time  with  the  bill  which  has  j  ust  been  passed.  The 
Senator  from  Oregon  [Mr.  MITCHELL]  tells  me  that  he  wishes  to  make 
some  remarks  upon  it,  but  the  whole  matter  is  covered  by  a  very  ex- 
cellent report  made  by  the  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  MORGAN],  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations.  I  will  ask  the  Sen- 
ate to  proceed  to  its  consideration  in  the  hope  that  the  Senator  from 
Oregon  will  waive  his  remarks.  I  do  not  wish  to  interfere  with  the 
pending  bill,  but  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  unanimously  re- 
ported this  measure.  A  like  bill  is  pending  in  the  House  of  Represent- 
atives. It  is  proper  to  state  that  without  stating  the  action  of  the  other 
House  upon  it.  I  do  not  think  that  any  one  who  reads  the  official  cor- 
respondence in  regard  to  the  massacre  of  unoffending  Chinese  at  Rock 
Springs,  Wyo.,  can  fail  to  feel  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  indemnify  the  injury.  I  move  that  the  Senate  proceed  to  the 
consideration  of  Senate  bill  2225. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  understand  the  chairman  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Relations  to  say  that  a  report  has  been  submitted  on 
that  bill.  I  have  not  been  able  to  find  any  report. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  The  Senator  from  Alabama  [Mr.  MORGAN]  prepared 
a  report,  but  he  is  not  here.  However,  all  the  facts  are  fully  stated  in 
the  official  documents.  I  have  them  all  here.  There  is  no  doubt  that 
the  injury  was  done  by  the  sudden  uprising  of  a  mob,  not  a  single 
American  among  them,  all  foreigners  entirely,  who  got  angry  with  the 
Chinese  because  they  refused  to  participate  in  a  strike,  and  they  mur- 
dered several  of  them,  burned  their  shanties,  and  destroyed  their  prop- 
erty. It  is  a  clear  case  it  seems  to  me  not  only  of  justice,  of  mercy,  of 
magnanimity,  but  I  think  it  is  within  the  language  of  the  treaty,  al- 
though upon  that  question  there  might  be  some  division  of  opinion. 
However,  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  were  unanimously  of 
opinion,  treaty  or  no  treaty,  that  in  dealing  with  these  people  we  ought 
to  pay  the  losses  and  damages  suffered. 

There  are  three  different  cases  where  the  United  States  have  enforced 
the  same  rule  against  the  Chinese,  and  the  Chinese  Government  have 
in  each  case  responded  by  paying  in  some  instances  a  greater  amount 
of  damages  than  was  suffered  by  citizens  of  the  United  States. 

This  appeal  is  made  to  us  by  the  Chinese  Government,  and  one  of 
the  most  eloquent,  one  of  the  most  beautiful  compositions  I  know  of 
in  our  language  is  a  recent  document  from  the  Chinese  minister  setting 
out  this  claim  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  appealing 
to  our  generosity,  to  our  magnanimity,  to  reimburse  these  people. 


I  move  that  the  Senate  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill.  At 
the  same  time,  if  the  bill  is  likely  to  take  time  I  shall  not  undertake  to 
press  it  to  a  vote  to-day. 

Mr.  HOAR.  How  about  the  injuries  done  to  Chinese  in  Washington 
Territory? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  The  Senator  from  Massachusetts  asks  me  about 
the  injuries  done  to  Chinese  in  Washington  Territory.  As  I  under- 
stand, the  authorities  in  Washington  Territory  summarily  and  promptly 
put  down  the  mob  there,  and  there  were  no  real  damages  done,  although 
lives  were,  threatened. 

Mr.  HOAR.     There  is  no  claim  from  China  on  that  account? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  There  is  no  claim  from  China  in  regard  to  that 
affair.  The  only  claim  made  by  the  Chinese  Government  is  this  claim, 
and  the  committee  have  responded  to  it  by  a  bill  placing  it  in  the 
power  of  .the  Secretary  of  State  to  pay  such  of  these  damages  as  he  finds 
after  a  careful  examination  have  actually  been  suffered  by  these  peo- 
ple, and  to  turn  the  amount,  whatever  it  is,  over  to  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment for  distribution  among  the  sufferers.  I  move  that  the  Senate 
proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Mr.  President 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  motion,  under  the  rules,  is  not 
debatable.  The  Senator  from  Ohio  moves  that  the  Senate  proceed  to 
the  consideration  of  the  bill  (S.  2225)  to  indemnity  certain  subjects  of 
the  Chinese  Empire  for  losses  sustained  by  the  violence  of  a  mob  at 
Rock  Springs,  in  the  Territory  of  Wyoming,  in  September,  1885. 

Mr.  PLUMB.     Will  that  not  lead  to  debate? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.     If  it  does  I  will  give  way. 

Mr.  PLUMB.  I  have  no  objection  to  debate,  except  that  I  do  not 
wish  it  to  displace  the  pending  special  order,  Senate  bill  1812,  to  pro- 
vide for  taxation  of  railroad-grant  lands. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  The  Senator  from  Oregon  tells  me  that  he  will 
insist  upon  making  a  speech  upon  the  subject.  I  do  think  when  the 
Senate  have  substantially  by  a  large  vote  agreed  that  they  would  carry 
out  the  policy  of  restriction  as  against  the  laborers  who  come  from 
China  we  should  make  a  suitable  provision  to  indemnify  those  who 
are  entitled  to  protection,  and  that  we  ought  not  now  to  interpose  any 
delay  or  impediment  to  the  passage  of  a  plain,  palpable  act  of  justice 
and  mercy. 

While  I  do  not  wish  to  stand  in  the  way  of  the  unfinished  business, 
I  hope  we  may  take  up  the  bill  and  pass  the  two  together,  and  I  will 
move  to  take  it  up,  promising  at  the  same  time  that  if  it  can  not  be 
disposed  of  this  evening  before  adjournment,  I  shall  give  way  to  the 
unfinished  business,  which  is  the  bill  providing  for  the  taxation  of 
railroad-grant  lands. 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.  The  question  is  on  the  motion  of  the 
Senator  from  Ohio  to  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  bill. 

The  motion  was  agreed  to;  and  the  Senate,  as  in  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  proceeded  to  consider  the  bill  (S.  2225)  to  indemnify  certain 
subjects  of  the  Chinese  Empire  for  losses  sustained  by  the  violence  of  a 
mob  at  Rock  Springs,  in  the  Territory  of  Wyoming,  in  September, 
1885. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Mr.  President 

.  Mr.  COCKRELL.     I  wish  to  ask  the  Senator  from  Ohio  a  question. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.     I  think  I  have  said  all  I  desired  to  say. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  I  want  to  know  who  were  the  persons  who  com- 
mitted this  depredation.  Were  they  American  citizens  or  not? 


Mr.  SHKKMAN.  There  was  not  a  single  American  citizen  among 
them.  They  were  foreigners. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  How  did  they  get  here,  and  how  did  the  tax-pay- 
ing people  of  the  United  States  become  responsible  for  the  malicious 
and  wrongful  arts  of  a  parcel  of  men  of  some  other  nationality? 

Mr.  sil  HK'M  A\.  They  were  admitted  here  under  the  policy  of  our 
laws.  Whether  those  laws  were  wise  or  not  it  is  not  for  me  to  discuss. 
It  is  sufficient  to  say  that  the  outrage  was  committed  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  whites,  said  to  be  Bohemians  and  of  other  nations;  but  each  na- 
tion is  seeking  to  deny  its  responsibility  for  these  people.  They  were 
lawless  people.  They  had  engaged  in  a  strike.  They  appealed  to  these 
Chinese  to  join  them  in  the  strike.  The  Chinese 'refused,  and  were 
going  on  digging  coal  out  of  the  earth  at  regular  wages,  the  coal  to  be 
used  by  the  railroads.  These  men  by  some  impulse  and  by  a  concerted 
movement  attacked  the  Chinese,  marched  upon  their  buildings  (for  they 
lived  in  a  place  by  themselves),  burned  down  their  village,  shot  them 
in  their  tents — no,  in  their  huts;  indeed  they  were  scarcely  huts — shot 
them  and  drove  them  away  into  the  mountains,  and  there  for  a  day  or 
two  they  wandered.  I  think  thirty  or  forty  of  them  were  killed  and 
a  number  were  wounded.  Then  those  men  burned  what  was  called 
Chinatown. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Twenty-eight  were  killed. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  Twenty-eight  were  killed,  the  Senator  from  Ore- 
gon tells  me.  They  burned  the  Chinatown.  This  was  done  to  people 
who  were  not  only  under  the  protection  of  our  laws,  but  under  the  ex- 
press provisions  of  the  treaty  made  with  China,  and  under  precisely 
similar  circumstances,  much  less  barbarous  in  their  nature,  the  Govern- 
ment of  China  was  made  three  different  times  to  pay  to  the  Govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  money  for  just  such  injuries  to  American 
citizens  in  China. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  Injuries  to  American  citizens  by  foreigners  re- 
siding in  China? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.     By  Chinese. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     Oh,  by  Chinese.  , 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  The  distinction  endeavored  to  be  made  by  the 
Senator  from  Missouri  is  not  well  taken.  When  we  admit  foreigners 
of  tliis  class  to  come  among  us  and  go  on  our  public  lands  and  into  our 
Territories  they  are  under  our  protection,  and  we  are  just  as  much  re- 
sponsible for  their  conduct  while  they  are  there  under  our  jurisdiction 
as  we  should  be  if  they  were  native-born  citizens.  I  say  they  are  not 
native-born  citizens  as  a  matter  of  pride,  because  our  people,  it  seems 
to  me,  could  not  in  any  portion  of  the  country  resort  to  any  such  bar- 
barity. 

At  all  events  these  men  suffered,  and  the  Chinese  minister,  in  an  elo- 
quent message  which  lies  upon  your  table,  which  you  could  read  with 
great  advantage,  makes  the  appeal  to  you  and  quotes  the  Divine  pre- 
cept of  doing  unto  others  as  you  would  have  them  do  unto  you,  stating 
that  that  is  a  law  older  even  than  Christianity,  and  he  appeals  to  us,  as 
we  have  required  of  them  redress  under  similar  circumstances,  that  this 
Government  should  give  redress  for  the  injuries  done  to  these  Chinese. 
If  the  Senator  from  Missouri  will  take  that  document  and  read  it  over 
and  will  find  in  it  technical  objections,  or  any  objections  whatever,  to 
the  payment  of  this  money,  I  am  greatly  mistaken  in  him.  I  know  he 
will  not. 

This  subject  was  fully  considered.  All  these  documents  were  read 
by  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations,  and  we  agreed  unanimously 


6 

that  in  pursuance  of  the  recommendation  made  by  the  President  in  his 
message  and  by  the  Secretary  of  State  in  an  admirable  document  which 
he  sent,  it  was  good  policy,  it  was  good  Christianity,  it  was  good  hu- 
manity to  reimburse  all  the  losses  committed  by  the  mob  in  this  riot. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  I  should  like  to  ask  the  Senator  if  there  is  any 
instance  on  record  where  American  citizens  traveling  in  any  foreign 
country  and  in  that  country  meeting  foreigners  from  an  entirely  dif- 
ferent country  have  been  injured,  there  was  claimed  any  indemnity  of 
the  government  in  whose  territory  they  happened  to  be? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  do  not  know  whether  there  is  any  country  which 
would  allow  foreigners  to  come  so  freely  into  its  territory  as  our  own 
does.  We  have  adopted  a  broad,  liberal  policy.  For  instance,  in  China 
you  could  not  find  anybody  but  Chinese  to  commit  barbarities  of  this 
kind. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     Certainly  not. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  If  you  would  go  to  England  you  could  not  find 
enough  foreigners  there  in  any  neighborhood  to  make  a  mob  of  foreign- 
ers without  having  Englishmen  to  participate  in  it.  But  the  policy  of 
our  laws  has  drawn  here  large  numbers  of  foreigners.  They  go  to  such 
portions  of  the  country  in  masses,  and  sometimes  monopolize  and  ex- 
clude American  citizens  from  certain  trades  and  occupations  by  their 
policy,  by  their  habits,  by  their  methods.  They  are  there  by  the  pro- 
tection of  our  laws,  and  we  as  a  nation  are  responsible  for  the  people 
who  are  brought  within  our  jurisdiction. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  As  I  understand,  a  parcel  of  Chinese  came  in  and 
engaged  in  work  there.  Here  was  a  parcel  of  Bohemians  who  came  to 
the  same  place;  They  got  into  this  controversy.  The  Bohemians  wanted 
the  Chinese  to  do  in  a  certain  way  and  the  Chinese  refused  to  do  it,  and 
they  went  to  killing  each  other;  and  the  American  citizens,  the  tax- 
payers of  this  country,  are  to  become  responsible  for  their  acts  upon 
each  other.  I  want  the  point  met.  Has  there  ever  been  a  precedent 
where  the  United  States  has  admitted  its  liability  for  the  wrongful, 
malicious,  tortious,  vindictive,  murderous  acts  of  foreigners  traveling 
in  this  country  upon  other  foreigners  who  were  also  traveling  in  this 
country  ? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  There  is  scarcely  a  State  in  this  Union  that  would 
not  be  responsible  under  like  circumstances  for  damages  done  in  a  riot 
by  a  mob.  How  often  has  that  been  enforced  in  the  States  ?  Remem- 
ber this  was  in  a  Territory  where  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
is  the  only  power,  where  the  jurisdiction  of  Congress  is  absolute  and 
complete.  Here  was  an  injury  done  to  people  under  our  protection, 
under  the  protection  of  our  laws,  and  not  only  of  our  laws  but  of  our 
treaty  obligations.  They  are  beaten  down  by  a  lawless  mob — I  do  not 
care  whether  you  call  them  Bohemians  or  what — by  a  mob  under  pre- 
cisely the  same  circumstances  in  almost  every  city  in  the  North  (and  I 
presume  in  the  South  you  have  the  same  laws)  the  city  is  responsible 
for  damages  done  by  a  mob.  It  is  only  the  same  rule  of  justice,  that 
where  a  city  or  a  State  claiming  to  be  the  government  fails  to  protect 
people  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  rights  and^a  mob  beats  down  the  rul- 
ing power,  the  government  of  the  people,  the  community,  State  or 
city,  should  be  responsible  for  the  consequences  of  that  mob. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Will  the  Senator  from  Ohio  yield  to 
me? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  I  am  answering  the  Senator  from  Missouri  now. 
When  I  am  through  answering  him  I  will  yield. 


The  Government  of  the  United  States  is  doing  precisely  now  for  in- 
juries done  by  this  mob  what  would  be  enforced  against  the  city  of  New 
York  or  Philadelphia  or  as  was  enforced  against  the  city  of  Pittsburgh. 
That  was  a  noted  case.  In  the  city  of  Pittsburgh  in  1877  a  mob,  sud- 
denly organized,  composed  largely  of  foreigners  it  is  said,  arose,  seized 
upon  arms,  and  burned  three  or  four  or  five  million  dollars'  worth  of 
property,  and  yet  the  city  of  Pittsburgh  was  compelled  to  pay  for  the 
damages  and  the  injuries  by  the  laws  of  Pennsylvania,  because  Penn- 
sylvania ought  to  have  exercised  her  power  to  put  down  the  mob,  and 
because  she  did  not  do  it  the  city  of  Pittsburgh  was  compelled  by  the 
laws  of  that  State  and  by  the  judgment  of  its  supreme  court  to  in- 
demnify the  parties  who  were  injured,  although  the  chief  sufferer  was 
the  Pennsylvania  Railroad,  an  enormous,  great  corporation. 

But  now  the  injury  here  is  done  to  poor  people,  many  of  whom  lose 
their  lives.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  principle  ought  to  be  enforced  in 
this  case  as  against  the  Government. 

This,  after  all,  is  not  so  much  of  an  appeal  to  the  law  as  it  is  an  ap- 
peal to  the  heart  of  every  Senator,  to  the  feeling  of  justice  that  rules 
and  governs  mankind,  that  an  injury  like  this,  wanton  in  character,  in 
a  region  under  our  jurisdiction,  should  be  remedied  and  redressed,  es- 
pecially as  the  fact  is  that  in  like  circumstances  we  have  severely  en- 
forced the  same  remedy  against  the  Chinese  Government,  in  one  case 
collecting  so  much  from  the  Chinese  Government  that  a  sense  of  jus- 
tice on  the  part  of  Congress  compelled  us  to  refund  a  considerable  part 
of  the  indemnity  that  we  had  collected  from  them. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     That  was  where  the  depredations  were  committed 
by  citizens  of  the  Chinese  Government  upon  our  citizens. 
"  Mr.  SHERMAN.     I  do  not  see  the  force  of  the  distinction. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  I  should  like  to  ascertain  the  fact,  were  not  these 
Chinese  taken  there  by  a  corporation  for  the  purpose  of  doing  its  work, 
and  were  not  the  other  side,  the  Bohemians,  also  taken  there  by  a  cor- 
poration as  hirelings?  Was  it  not  these  two  classes  that  came  in  con- 
flict? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  There  was  no  conflict;  it  was  all  on  one  side.  As 
to  how  they  got  there  I  do  not  know. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  Were  they  not  imported  there  ?  Were  they  not 
taken  there  for  a  specific  purpose?  They  certainly  were  not  roaming 
around  as  citizens  of  that  Territory  or  engaged  in  any  business. 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  They  were  taken  there  for  a  lawful  purpose,  for 
the  mining  of  coal. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  How  were  the  Bohemians  taken  there?  For  the 
same  purpose? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  They  may  have  gone  there  by  their  own  volition, 
so  far  as  I  know.  There  is  nothing  in  the  papers  to  indicate  how  they 
were  brought  there. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  How  many  Chinese  were  there,  and  how  did  they 
get  there? 

Mr.  SHERMAN.  My  impression  is  that  the  sufferers  numbered  two 
or  three  hundred. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.  The  two  or  three  hundred  Chinamen  never  found 
their  way  out  into  Wyoming  to  a  coal- bank  there  without  some  concert 
of  action.  They  must  have  been  acting  under  the  authority  of  some 
corporation  or  individual;  and  these  Bohemians  from  Europe  never 
would  have  found  their  way  out  there  unless  they  had  been  acting 
under  the  control  and  direction  of  some  ^corporation. 


8 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  principle  of  making  the  people  of  the  United 
States,  the  tax-payers  of  this  country,  responsible  for  the  class  of  people 
that  corporations  and  monopolies  may  import  into  the  country  to  dis- 
place American  labor,  and  make  them  responsible  for  the  depredations 
they  may  commit  upon  each  other.  Here  are  these  two  classes,  Chinese 
and  Bohemians,  brought  there,  hired,  who  came  there  practically  as 
serfs.  They  get  into  a  quarrel ;  some  dispute  arises;  one  side  wants  the 
other  to  do  a  certain  thing;  they  rise  as  a  mob,  destroy,  kill;  and  then 
the  honest,  laboring,  tax-paying  citizens  of  the  United  States  are  to  re- 
spond in  damages  for  their  acts.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  an y  principle 
of  law  or  of  justice  or  equity  or  morality  or  religion  that  makes  the  peo- 
ple of  this  country  responsible  in  such  a  case. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Mr.  President,  it  has  always  seemed  to  me  that 
every  government  had  a  right  to  determine  what  people  should  come 
within  its  borders,  and  that  every  person  who  did  come  within  its 
borders  by  its  consent  was  entitled,  as  one  section  of  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States  says,  to  the  equal  protection  of  law.  No  matter 
whether  he  be  a  citizen  or  not,  the  fourteenth  amendment  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States,  which  was  adopted  before  my  distin- 
guished friend  from  Missouri  came  into  the  Senate,  provided  that  every 
person — not  every  citizen,  but  every  person — should  be  entitled  to  the 
equal  protection  of  law. 

The  treaties  of  the  United  States  with  China  and  the  laws  of  Con- 
gress carrying  them  out  provided  that  certain  of  the  subjects  of  the 
Emperor  of  China  might  come  to  the  United  States  under  certain  con- 
ditions and  stipulations  and  restrictions.  The  presumption  is,  and  I 
have  no  doubt  the  truth  is  as  to  ninety-nine  in  a  hundred  of  the  China- 
men who  were  outraged  in  that  Territory,  that  they  came  within  that 
provision.  There  may  have  been  some  fraud,  but  it  was  a  very  small 
per  cent,  if  it  existed  at  all — not  more  than  1  per  cent.  So  the  subjects 
of  the  Emperor  of  China  coming  into  the  United  States  in  pursuance 
of  the  treaty  stipulations  and  in  accordance  with  the  acts  of  Congress, 
being  engaged  in  lawful  pursuits  in  that  Territory — not  a  State  but  a 
Territory — were  subj  ected  to  the  outrages  of  a  mob.  Now,  the  question 
is  whether  the  United  States  ought  to  make  the  same  indemnity  to 
China  that,  if  the  case  were  reversed,  we  should  insist,  as  we  have  in- 
sisted hitherto,  that  recompense  and  retribution  and  reimbursement 
and  indemnity  should  be  made  to  us  in  such  a  case. 

That  is  the  proposition,  and  it  is  not  of  the  slightest  consequence 
whether  the  outrages  were  committed  upon  these  subjects  of  the  Em- 
peror of  China  by  citizens  of  the  United  States  or  by  outlaws  or  enemies 
of  the  United  States  or  whatever.  We  were  bound  by  our  treaty  with 
China  and  by  the  effect  of  our  acts  of  Congress  and  by  the  effect  of  our 
Constitution  itself  to  see  that  these  people  should  be  protected  in  the 
enjoyment  of  their  rights  that  they  had  which  were  invaded  in  this 
way,  just  as  much  as  if  they  had  received  a  similar  outrage  from  the 
President  of  the  United  States  in  person  or  from  the  Senate  and  House 
of  Eepresentatives  of  the  United  States  in  their  respective  persons  on 
that  occasion.  We  can  not  get  off  either  in  international  law  or  in 
morals  upon  the  idea  that  the  people  who  assailed  them  were  Bohe- 
mians, whatever  that  may  mean. 

If  we  wish  to  cultivate  the  arts  of  peace;  if  we  wish  to  cultivate  the 
principles  of  justice  and  fair  play,  and  to  deal  with  others  as  we  would 
wish  them  and  would  compel  them  to  the  extent  of  our  power  to  deal 
with  us  under  similar  circumstances,  it  seems  to  me  to  be  clear  that  the 


9 

Treasury  ol'  the  United  States  should  make  indemnity  to  China  for  the 
benefit  of  its  subject-  in  a  case  of  this  kind.     That  is  where  it  stands. 

It  is  not  a  question  who  were  the  people  who  assailed  them.  They 
were  under  the  protection  of  our  law,  and  wherever  that  protection  was 
violated  in  this  way  they  were  entitled  to  indemnity,  because  the  law 
officers  of  the  United  States  and  the  lorces  of  the  Territory  knowing 
that  this  thing  was  impending  did  not  exert  themselves  in  the  way 
they  might  and  ought  to  have  done  to  prevent  it. 

\s  1  say  again,  under  precisely  similar  circumstances  wre  have  de- 
manded from  that  very  empire  and  of  the  Empire  of  Japan,  and  in  fact 
of  every  power  where  similar  things  have  occurred,  that  indemnity 
should  be  made  in  order  to  vindicate,  as  far  as  we  might,  our  glad  duty 
of  protecting  the  citizens  of  other  countries  who  come  to  us  in  the  way 
that  we  have  engaged  to  protect  them.  That  is  where  the  case  stands 
as  it  appears  to  me. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     May  I  ask  the  Senator  a  question? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.     Yes. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  The  Senator  in  his  opening  remarks 
quoted  from  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  I  believe  ? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.     Yes. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  He  quoted  some  clause  to  the  effect 
that  all  persons  are  entitled  to  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  There 
were  twenty-eight  Chinamen  who  were  so  unfortunate  as  to  lose  their 
lives  in  the  disgraceful  occurrence  which  took  place  at  Rock  Springs, 
subjects  of  the  Chinese  Empire,  resident  in  this  country,  engaged  in 
following  the  occupation  of  laborers.  Suppose  that  instead  of  being 
twenty-eight  Chinamen  it  had  been  fourteen  Chinamen  and  fourteen 
citizens  of  the  United  States  who  had  lost  their  lives,  would  my  friend 
from  Vermont  and  would  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  this 
body  recommend  that  those  citizens  of  the  United  States  be  indemni- 
fied, not  through  the  courts  in  the  ordinary  way,  but  as  is  proposed 
here  by  an  appropriation  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States? 
That  is  the  question  which  I  put  to  the  Senator. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Well,  I  will  answer,  and  answering  categorically, 
I  will  say,  no. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Then,  right  there 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  If  you  will  just  pardon  me,  when  I  say  "no'' 
I  say  it  with  an  explanation,  or  a  justification,  which  is  a  better  word. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Very  well. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Every  citizen  of  the  United  States  who  is  preyed 
upon  by  a  fellow-citizen  has  a  common  recourse  at  law,  and  he  is  not 
under  any  constitutional  or  treaty  protection  from  another  power  that 
is  engaged  in  defending  him  in  any  such  attitude  as  a  foreigner  is. 
Therefore  I  say  that  the  case  is  entirely  distinguishable  between  a  mob 
which  inflicts  an  injury  upon  a  citizen  of  the  United  States  and  a  mob 
which  inflicts  an  injury  upon  subjects  of  another  country  whom  we  have 
engaged  to  protect. 

I  will  put  to  my  friend  a  corresponding  question.  Suppose  a  similar 
number  of  American  citizens  had  been  engaged  in  extracting  coal-oil 
from  the  depths  of  the  ground  in  Western  Canada,  in  the  district  of 
Ontario,  under  a  treaty  with  Great  Britain,  which  authorized  them  to 
go  there  and  to  be  engaged  in  that  business.  Thereupon  a  British  mob 
in  Ontario  proceeds,  on  account  of  the  fact  that  they  are  citizens  of  the 
United  States  (for  that  was  the  fundamental  ground  of  this  mob,  that 
these  men  were  Chinese  and  not  Americans  or  Bohemians  or  Europeans), 


10 

proceeds  to  put  them  to  death.  I  ask  my  friend  from  Oregon  if  he 
would  not  stand  up  with  all  the  rest  of  us  and  call  upon  the  British 
Government,  the  most  powerful  probably  in  all  respects,  excepting 
ourselves,  on  the  globe,  and  say  to  the  extent  of  war  we  will  demand 
that  you  shall  make  restitution  to  the  heirs  and  children  and  wives  of 
these  people  and  make  reimbursement  for  the  losses  that  they  have 
sustained.  There  is  not  a  man  in  the  Senate  who  would  not  stand  up, 
and  would  not  go  to  the  front  if  he  was  capable  of  carrying  a  musket, 
to  accomplish  that  very  thing,  and  it  is  the  very  thing  that  we  have 
over  and  over  again  with  other  nations  insisted  should  be  done,  as  we 
would  have  done  if  a  similar  number  of  American  citizens  because  they 
were  American  citizens  had  been  maltreated  in  the  very  front  of  Buck- 
ingham Palace  in  London,  which  is  the  official  residence  of  the  Queen 
at  the  seat  of  her  empire. 

It  is  stated  in  the  documents,  as  my  friend  the  chairman  of  the  com- 
mittee [Mr.  SHERMAN]  points  out  to  me,  by  the  Chinese  consul  in 
San  Francisco,  Mr.  Bee: 

I  am,  after  a  thorough  investigation,  firmly  of  the  opinion  that  not  one  of  these 
criminals  who  murdered  the  twenty-eight  Chinese,  burned  and  robbed  them  at 
Rock  Springs  on  the  2d  day  of  September,  will  or  can  ever  be  brought  to  pun- 
ishment by  the  so-called  Territorial  or  local  authorities.  In  this  opinion  I  am 
sustained  not  only  by  my  own  convictions,  but  also  by  the  governor  and  prose- 
cuting attorney  of  the  Territory,  and  scores  of  citizens,  resident  and  non-resi- 
dent. 

Therefore,  if  we  are  right  in  our  pretensions,  as  I  submit  we  are, 
when  our  citizens  are  thus  treated  in  a  foreign  country  whose  protec- 
tion by  treaty  they  are  entitled  to,  is  it  not  right  that  we  should  have 
the  manhood  and  the  honor  to  say  that  when  the  case  comes  the  other 
way  we  will  do  all  that  we  can  to  make  restitution  and  reimbursement 
for  such  a  crime  and  injury? 

,  My  friend  from  Massachusetts  [Mr.  HOAR]  calls  my  attention  to  the 
third  article  of  the  treaty  with  China,  which  reads  as  follows: 

If  Chinese  laborers,  or  Chinese  of  any  other  class,  now  either  permanently  or 
temporarily  residing  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  meet  with  ill-treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  any  other  persons — 

Not  United  States  citizens,  but  "any  other  persons  " — 

the  Government  of  the  United  States  will  exert  all  its  power  to  devise  measures 
for  their  protection,  and  to  secure  to  them  the  same  rights,  privileges,  immu- 
nities, and  exemptions  as  may  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the 
most  favored  nation,  and  to  which  they  are  entitled  by  treaty. 

Mr.  COCKKELL.  Is  there  any  indemnity  for  any  injury  that  may 
happen  to  them  ? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Oh,  no;  the  logic  is  generally  left  out  of  a  statute. 
There  is  not  any  indemnity  in  most  statutes. 

Mr.  COCKRELL.     It  seems  to  have  been  left  out  of  that  one. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  It  is  the  honor  that  is  supposed  to  follow  in  the 
minds  of  most  men.  and  it  is  an  honor  that  the  Senator  from  Missouri 
would  stand  up  for  as  strongly  as  I  do,  if  any  similar  number,  or  any 
quarter  number,  or  tenth  number  of  citizens  of  the  United  States  had 
been  similarly  treated  in  any  other  country  on  this  globe. 

Even  this  administration,  as  conservative — I  will  not  use  any  offensive 
phrase — as  it  maybe,  would  recommend  and  its  partisans  and  adherents 
would  vote  for  measures  for  raising  armies  and  arming  vessels  and 
carrying  on  a  war,  no  matter  whether  with  Great  Britain  or  France  or 
Germany  or  the  greatest  powers  on  the  globe  or  the  smallest  ones,  to 
reach  the  very  indemnity  that  we  for  our  own  honor  should  cheerfully 
and  gladly  propose  in  this  case.  If  the  argument  is  based  on  the  ques- 


11 

tion  of  physical  strength  only  and  that  everything  that  is  might  is  right, 
then  the  Senator  from  Missouri  is  correct;  but  if  it  is  based  upon 
national  honor  and  justice  and  duty  as  between  nations,  then  if  we 
apply  to  ourselves  the  same  law  of  justice  as  we  demand  from  others 
there  is  no  answer  to  this  bill. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Mr.  President,  the  Senator  from  Ver- 
mont answered  my  question  in  the  negative.  He  said  that  if  a  num- 
ber of  the  persons  murdered  by  this  mob  had  been  American  citizens 
instead  of  being  subjects  of  China,  then  he  would  not  favor  an  indem- 
nification for  their  wrongs  and  their  injuries  by  an  appropriation  from 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States.  Then  why  quote  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States,  the  fourteenth  amendment,  here  as  hearing  upon 
this  question?  The  Senator  in  his  opening  remarks  referred  to  that 
article  which  says  that  no  State  shall  "deny  to  any  person  within  its 
jurisdiction  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws."  Has  not  the  Chinese 
<ubject  the  same  protection  of  the  laws  in  Wyoming  that  our  own  cit- 
izens have? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  Your  executive  officers  say  no,  and  we  all  know 
it  is  true. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  A  mere  failure  to  find  an  indictment, 
a  mere  failure  of  justice,  does  not  create  a  new  principle,  it  seems  to 
me. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.     No,  but  illustrates  the  fact. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Nor  does  it  demonstrate  that  there  is 
a  difficulty  in  this  particular  case.  The  fourteenth  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  has  nothing  to  do  with  it,  in  my  judgment.  Of  course, 
all  persons  are  entitled  to  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws.  What 
laws?  The  laws  that  create  tribunals,  the  laws  that  enact  provisions 
for  the  protection  of  private  property  and  for  life,  our  domestic  laws, 
not  international  laws,  not  any  obligation  that  may  arise  by  virtue  of 
a  conventional  stipulation  with  a  foreign  nation.  So  it  does  occur  to 
me  that  this  provision  of  the  Constitution  has  nothing  whatever  to  do 
with  this  question,  and  why  my  friend  from  Vermont  quoted  it  I  con- 
fess I  am  unable  to  see. 

Now.  Mr.  President,  one  other  word 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  With  the  permission  of  my  friend,  I  wish  to  recall 
to  his  attention  a  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
respect  of  our  internal  laws,  that  this  provision  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  is  not  a  provision  of  statute  and  legislative  authority,  but 
ir  is  a  provision  of  action,  and  they  have  held  that  where  in  some  one  or 
two  of  the  States,  where  the  question  arose,  the  administration  of  the 
laws  of  Virginia,  if  it  arose  there,  or  Kentucky,  or  wherever  it  was,  that 
denied  in  fact  and  prevented  in  fact  and  did  not  accomplish  in  fact  the 
equal  justice  and  protection  that  the  constitutional  provision  provided 
for,  was  an  invasion  of  this  principle.  It  was  by  way  of  illustration  of 
the  right  that  I  quoted  that  and  in  that  connection.  So  it  is  not  a 
question  of  mere  law-making;  it  is  a  question  of  law-doing  by  execu- 
tion ;  and  now  we  have  the  officials  of  the  Government  reporting  to  the 
President  of  the  United  States  through  the  proper  Department  that 
the  execution  of  the  law  there  can  not  be  accomplished,  and,  therefore, 
these  persons  are  denied,  under  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of 
the  United  States  and  in  their  very  language,  as  I  believe,  that  equal 
protection  which  the  Constitution  gives  them,  because  the  executive 
authority  and  the  administrative  authority,  whether  the  judicial  or 
otherwise,  is  incapable  of  doing  it. 


12 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Suppose  in  any  given  case  where  par- 
ties have  suffered  by  a  mob  there  was  a  failure  to  protect  our  own  citi- 
zens not  the  subjects  of  a  foreign  power,  no  matter  how  that  failure 
may  come;  admit  that  it  does  come  for  the  very  reason  stated  by  the 
honorable  Senator,  by  a  failure  to  execute  the  law  as  it  should  be  exe- 
cuted, would  my  friend  then  favor  an  appropriation  from  the  Treasury 
of  the  United  States  to  indemnify  such  person,  a  citizen  ? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  That  would  depend  as  to  whether  it  was  within 
a  State  or  a  Territory,  because  within  a  State  its  internal  policy  is  its 
own  affair,  and  it  would  be  the  duty  of  the  State  to  indemnify;  but  in 
a  Territory,  which  is  our  business  and  ours  alone,  in  the  case  proposed 
I  should  say  it  would.  If  the  United  States  in  a  Territory,  over  which 
it  has  sole  control  and  for  which  it  is  entirely  responsible  and  of  which 
it  creates  all  the  government,  fails  in  providing  such  executive  govern- 
ment as  to  protect  the  citizen,  then  I  say  the  United  States  ought  to 
make  indemnity. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  One  other  question,  Mr.  President. 
Let  me  ask  the  honorable  Senator  from  Vermont,  inasmuch  as  the  United 
States  Government  has  classed  the  Indians  of  this  country  as  its  wards 
and  exercised  jurisdiction  over  them  and  entered  into  treaties  with  them, 
in  the  event  of  Indian  outbreaks,  and  Indian  depredations,  and  Indian 
mobs,  and  Indian  murders,  and  Indian  massacres,  as  there  can  be  no 
indemnification  by  the  courts  that  we  have  seen  proper  to  establish  in 
our  Territories  within  the  United  States,  would  he  indemnify  on  the 
same  principle  the  sufferers  in  those  cases  by  an  appropriation  out  of 
the  Treasury  of  the  United  States? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  That  would  not  follow,  although  I  can  tell  my 
friend,  as  he  probably  very  well  knows,  that  in  a  thousand  such  cases, 
speaking  in  round  numbers,  we  have  compelled  the  Indian  tribes  whose 
members  did  those  things  to  pay  for  the  benefit  of  the  people  injured 
out  of  their  funds  a  proper  indemnity,  and  in  a  great  many  other  cases 
we  have  provided,  when  there  was  not  any  such  indemnity  got,  to  pay 
out  of  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Mr.  President,  I  was  not  aware  that 
this  question  was  coming  up  this  evening.  I  do  not  know  that  there 
is  any  other  Senator  here  who  will  vote  against  this  bill.  For  one  I 
never  intend  to  vote  for  it,  and  I  desire  very  much  to  give  my  reasons 
why  I  shall  not  vote  for  it. 

Several  SENATORS.     Give  them  now. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  am  not  prepared  to  do  it  now,  be- 
cause there  are  certain  papers  which  I  have  that  are  not  here.  I  will 
be  ready  to-morrow  morning,  or  whenever  it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  Senate 
to  take  up  the  bill  and  dispose  of  it. 

I  undertake  to  say  in  this  connection  that,  in  my  judgment,  after  a 
most  careful  examination,  there  is  no  principle  either  of  international 
law,  of  conventional  stipulation  in  any  treaty  existing  between  this 
country  and  China,  or  in  any  Federal  statute  that  will  justify  this  pro- 
posed action ;  but  upon  the  contrary,  if  this  bill  passes,  as  I  have  no 
doubt  it  will,  it  will  be  no  more  and  no  less  than  an  act  of  charity,  pure 
and  simple,  an  act  of  benevolence,  and  nothing  else.  I  undertake  to 
say  in  this  connection  here  and  now  that  there  never  has  been  a  Sec- 
retary of  State  from  the  time  of  Daniel  Webster  down  to  the  present 
day,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  advise  myself,  who  has  not  argued 
ably  and  at  length  and  with  collusiveness  that  in  a  case  like  this  there 
is  no  legal  liability  whatever  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  make  indemnity.  That  was  the  position  taken  by 


13 

Daniel  Webster  in  regard  to  the  celebrated  Spanish  riots  at  Key  West; 
that  was  tin-  position  taken  by  Secretory  Se ward,  by  Secretary  Blaine, 
and  by  secretary  Kvarts,  and  it  is  the  position  taken  to-day  by  Secretary 
i'.avard,  although  it  is  a  tart  that  the  present  Secretary  of  State  recom- 
mends it  as  an  act  of  benevolence,  as  an  act  of  pure  charity,  and  with  the 
distinct  understanding,  as  he  declares  in  his  letter  to  the  President  of 
the  United  States,  that  it  shall  not  be  considered  as  a  precedent  nor  as 
,  rent  ing  a  liability  on  the  part  of  the  Government  to  respond  in  damages 
from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States  in  any  such  case. 

Mr.  ING  ALLS.  Does  the  Senator  oppose  that  view  of  it  as  an  act 
of  charity? 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  certainly  am  opposed  to  extending 
this  as  an  act  of  charity;  and  until  the  Congress  of  the  United  States 
will  pay  some  portion  at  least  of  the  twelve  or  thirteen  million  dollars 
due  on  account  of  losses  suffered  by  frontiersmen  in  the  Western  States 
and  Territories  by  reason  of  Indian  depredations,  in  reference  to  which 
there  is  to-day  a  legal  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  Government  of  the 
United  States  to  make  payment,  I  shall  vote  no  gracious  contribution 
to  Chinese  subjects  in  this  country.  Not  by  my  vote  shall  an  act  of  be- 
nevolence be  passed  through  the  Senate  until  these  obligations  to  our 
frontiersmen  and  our  pioneers  receive  some  kind  of  attention  and  some 
kind  of  respect  at  the  hands  of  Congress. 

You  pass  resolutions  through  Congress  directing  the  Secretary  of  the 
Interior  to  investigate  and  find  out  what  losses  have  been  sustained  by 
our  own  citizens  by  reason  of  Indian  depredations,  by  reason  of  the  acts 
of  men  with  whom  you  have  made  treaties  and  with  whom  yon  are  in 
treaty  relations  to-day.  The  Secretary,  in  pursuance  of  that  direction, 
has  gone  on  and  investigated  these  cases  and  reported  these  claims  to 
Congress  amounting  to  many  millions  of  dollars,  and  they  lie  stuck 
away  in  your  pigeon-holes;  and  yet  before  the  cry  of  the  mob  has  died 
away,  of  an  alien  mob  in  the  Territory  of  Wyoming,  we  get  on  our 
knees  here  before  the  Chinese  Empire  and  propose  to  do  an  act  of  great 
grace,  to  pass  an  act  of  benevolence,  an  act  of  charity,  when  not  a  Sen- 
ator upon  this  Foreign  Relations  Committee,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  yet 
had  the  temerity,  if  I  may  be  permitted  to  use  the  language,  to  place 
upon  record  in  the  Senate  any  report  upon  which  they  can  base  a  legal 
obligation  to  do  what  they  now  propose  to  do.  I  have  watched  care- 
fully, and  I  have  seen  no  report  from  the  committee  in  support  of  this 
bill. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  inasmuch  as  I  for  one — and  I  perhaps  shall  be 
the  only  one  in  the  Senate,  I  do  not  know  how  that  is — do  not  intend 
to  vote  for  this  bill,  and  inasmuch  as  I  shall  perhaps  be  so  largely  in  the 
minority,  I  think  it  but  due  not  only  to  the  Senate  but  to  the  people 
whom  I  in  part  represent  here  that  I  should  give  my  reasons.  I  prefer 
to  do  it  in  a  careful,  methodical  way.  I  shall  do  so  to-morrow  if  1  have 
an  opportunity.  If  the  Senate  denies  me  that,  of  course  I  shall  cast  my 
vote  against  the  bill  and  submit.  I  will  say,  however,  before  I  take 
my  seat,  that  I  had  understood  from  the  honorable  chairman  of  the 
Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  that  if  I  desired  to  make  an  argument 
on  this  question  he  would  give  way  until  to-morrow.  I  will  say  in  ad- 
dition that  if  my  request  is  denied,  I  think  perhaps  it  will  be  the  only 
time  such  a  request  was  ever  denied  in  the  Senate. 

*•*#*•»•#•* 

The  PRESIDING  OFFICER.     The  Senator  from  Ohio  moves  that 
the  further  consideration  of  the  bill  be  postponed  until  to-morrow. 
The  motion  was  agreed  to. 


14 


June  3,  1886. 

INDEMNITY   TO   CHINESE   SUBJECTS. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  bill  taken  upon  motion  of  the 
Senator  from  Vermont  [Mr.  EDMUNDS]  is  before  the  Senate  as  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole.  Its  title  will  be  stated. 

The  CHIEF  CLERK.  A  bill  (S.  2225)  to  indemnify  certain  subjects 
of  the  Chinese  Empire  for  losses  sustained  by  the  violence  of  a  mob  at 

Rock  Springs,  in  the  Territory  of  Wyoming,  in  September,  1885. 

•*  •*  *  -x-  *  •&  •* 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  ask  for  the  reading  of  the  bill. 
The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  bill  will  be  read  at  length. 
The  Secretary  read  as  follows: 

Be  it  enacted,  dec..  That  the  President  of  the  United  States  shall  ascertain  the 
actual  loss  and  damage  inflicted  upon  the  person  and  property  of  Chinese  sub- 
jects by  the  violence  of  a  mob  of  lawless  and  riotous  persons  at  and  near  Rock 
Springs,  in  Wyoming  Territory,  on  or  about  the  2d  day  of  September,  1885 ;  and 
for  this  purpose  he  may  detail  such  officers  of  the  United  States  as  he  may  desig- 
nate, not  exceeding  three  in  number,  to  investigate  and  take  the  testimony  of 
witnesses  as  to  the  nature  and  extent  of  the  damage  done  to  the  person  and 
property  of  Chinese  subjects,  and,  in  connection  therewith,  may  consider  the 
testimony  already  taken  and  reports  made,  subject  to  the  cross-examination  of 
the  witnesses,  if  deemed  necessary,  and  such  other  proof  as  may  be  submitted 
to  them  by  the  Government  of  China.  They  shall  report  the  estimate  of  the 
damages  sustained  by  each  person,  and  the  testimony,  to  the  Secretary  of  State, 
within  six  months  from  the  approval  of  this  act,  which  time  may  be  extended 
not  exceeding  six  months  by  the  order  of  the  President,  and  the  same  shall  be 
examined  by  the  Secretary  of  State;  and  thereupon  the  President  shall  award, 
to  each  person  so  injured  the  sum  that  he  shall  consider  to  be  just  in  view  of 
the  evidence  and  report  so  presented  to  him. 

SEC.  2.  That  the  aggregate  amount  so  awarded  by  the  President,  not  exceed- 
ing $150,000,  shall  be  paid  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  out  of  any  money 
in  the  Treasury  not  otherwise  appropriated,  to  the  envoy  extraordinary  and 
minister  plenipotentiary  for  China  at  Washington,  in  full*  satisfaction  and  dis- 
charge of  the  injuries  to  person  and  property  inflicted  upon  subjects  of  the 
Chinese  Empine ;  and  the  sum  of  $5,000,  or  so  much  thereof  as  may  be  necessary, 
is  hereby  appropriated,  out  of  any  money  in  the  Treasury,  not  otherwise  ap- 
propriated, to  be  disbursed  under  the  direction  of  the  Secretary  of  State,  to  pay 
the  expenses  necessarily  incurred  for  traveling  or  other  expenses  under  the 
provisions  of  this  act. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  Mr.  President,  inasmuch  as  this  meas- 
ure has  been  reported  from  a  committee  composed  of  the  most  distin- 
guished Senators  of  this  body,  and  which  committee  is  presided  over  by 
the  honorable  President  of  this  body,  and  inasmuch  as  that  report  is 
unanimous,  and  as  I  am  unable  to  concur  in  the  bill  or  give  it  my  sup- 
port, I  have  thought  it  due  to  myself  as  well  as  others  that  I  should 
state  my  reasons  as  briefly  as  possible  for  not  supporting  the  bill. 

Mr.  President,  under  no  circumstances,  from  no  conceivable  stand- 
point, nor  for  any  reason  can  the  Wyoming  massacre  be  either  palliated 
or  excused,  much  less  justified.  However  much  we  may  deplore  the 
fact  of  the  existence  in  this  country  or  any  part  of  it  of  objectionable, 
antagonistic,  and  non-assimilating  race  elements,  whose  presence  tends 
to  riot,  anarchy,  and  bloodshed,  when  the  blow  comes,  from  whatever 
source  it  may  come,  and  human  rights  are  stricken  down,  the  civil  law 
overridden,  the  public  peace  disturbed,  private  property  destroyed,  and 
human  life  sacrificed,  humanity,  law,  civilization  have  but  one  voice  to 
utter  against  the  perpetrators,  and  that  is  of  unqualified  and  absolute 
condemnation. 

Whatever  may  be  said  of  the  undesirability  of  the  presence  of  Chi- 


15 

nese  in  this  country,  or  of  that  of  any  other  obnoxious  element,  the 
massacre  of  twenty-elicit  of  the  Chinese  race  at  Wyoming  on  Septem- 
ber'2  last  by  mob  violence  is  as  inexcusable,  reprehensible,  defenseless, 
and  cowardly  as  was  the  recent  act  of  anarchist  alien  fiends,  who  a  few 
days  since,  with  civilization  proscribed  weapons,  scattered  death  and 
destruction  among  the  preservers  of  the  peace  in  the  streets  of  Chicago. 
Mob  violence  in  this  country,  however  great  the  provocation,  or  whether, 
as  is  too  often  the  case,  without  any  provocation  whatever,  should  re- 
ceive the  unqualified  and  emphatic  condemnation  of  every  citizen  of  the 
Republic,  both  native  and  foreign-born,  whether  the  representative  of 
labor  or  capital. 

On  the  preservation  and  vindication  of  the  majesty  of  the  law  at  all 
times  and  under  all  circumstances  must  the  people  of  America  ever 
rely  as  upon  a  rock  of  enduring  safety  for  the  preservation  and  per- 
petuity, not  only  of  the  rights  of  property  and  life,  but  also  the  prin- 
ciples of  human  liberty  and  free  institutions.  This  great  barrier 
against  ruthless  and  dangerous  invasion  once  broken  down,  or  impaired 
in  vitalizing  tbrce  and  effect,  and  the  security  of  the  public  peace,  the 
protection  of  public  and  private,  property,  and  the  preservation  of  hu- 
man life  become  proportionately  weakened,  subjected  to  imminent 
peril,  and  more  readily  exposed  to  the  rage  and  fury  of  those  disturb- 
ing and  abnormal  elements  of  society,  whose  mission  on  earth  seems 
to  be  the  dethronement  of  law  and  order,  the  establishment  of  lawless- 
nul  contusion,  and  who,  in  the  language  of  Cowper,  "spread  an- 
archy and  terror  all  around." 

A  nd  let  it  not  be  supposed  for  one  moment  that  the  people  of  the 
Pacific  coast  who  have  felt  the  infectious  and  paralyzing  touch  of  Asiatic 
invasion,  and  who  by  reason  of  actual  experience  have  been  enabled  to 
rise  to  the  importance  of  the  situation  in  reference  to  that  grave  subject, 
and  who  to-day  with  one  voice  demand  absolute  exclusion  in  the  fu- 
ture— one  petition  alone  to  this  Congress  demanding  absolute  prohi- 
bition containing  over  50,000  names — are  for  this  or  any  other  reason 
any  h-s  earnest  in  their  patriotic  determination  to  maintain  to  the  extent 
of  their  power,  at  all  times  and  under  all  circumstances,  in  every  le- 
gitimate and  proper  way,  the  preservation  of  the  public  peace,  and  the 
protection  of  the  individual  rights  of  life,  lirnb,  and  property  of  every 
human  being  rightfully  within  our  borders,  whether  native  or  foreign- 
born,  citizen  or  alien,  white,  black,  red,  or  yellow. 

Unfortunately  a  somewhat  contrary  impression  of  the  motives,  incli- 
nations, intentions,  and  actions  of  the  people  of  the  Pacific  States  and 
Territories  has  l>eeu  created  here  and  elsewhere  in  the  East  through 
the  unwarranted  and  unjustifiable  misrepresentations  of  a  portion  of 
the  public  press,  and  by  those  prompted  by  sinister  motives  and  for 
selfish  ends,  but  all  such  misrepresentations  are  gross  and  indefensible 
libels  upon  as  brave,  peaceable,  law-abiding,  and  as  courageous  and  in- 
telligent, communities  as  any  to  be  found  east  of  the  Rocky  Mountains. 
They,  irrespective  of  party,  with  one  emphatic  voice  condemn  the  Wy- 
oming outrage.  No  portion  of  the  American  people  more  deeply  de- 
plore this  stain  on  the  otherwise  fair  name  of  Wyoming  than  they. 
That  this  gross  overturning  of  the  law  and  violation  of  human  rights 
did  not  occur  within  the  territory  of  the  Pacific  States  or  Territories 
is  to  them  a  source  of  supreme  self-  congratulation.  None  more  regret- 
fully than  they  learned  of  this  wanton  destruction  of  human  life. 

No  portion  of  the  people  of  this  Republic  would  more  readily  than 
they  undo,  if  they  had  the  power,  this  sad  occurrence  in  our  history, 


16 

or  wipe  by  any  lawful  means  at  their  command  this  blot  from  the  rec- 
ords of  the  past.  None  more  heartily  than  they  sympathized  with  the 
victims  of  that  injustifiable  outrage.  But  the  deed  is  done.  The  out- 
rage is  unfortunately  already  a  part  of  our  recorded  history,  or  perhaps, 
more  properly  speaking,  of  the  history  of  the  Territory  of  Wyoming. 
The  past  is  irrevocable. 

The  lives  of  those  that  perished  are  beyond  human  recall.  What- 
ever of  property  was  destroyed  by  the  torch  or  otherwise  can  not  be 
resurrected  from  its  ashes.  Hence  we  are  met  with  a  demand  for 
national  indemnity.  It  is  proposed  by  the  bill  imder  consideration  to 
take  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United*  States  the  sum  of  $150,000  and 
turn  it  over  jx>  whom  ?  Not  to  the  men  who  suffered  in  the  loss  of 
property,  not  to  the  legal  representatives  of  the  twenty-eight  unfortu- 
nate victims  who  lost  their  lives  at  the  hands  of  the  mob,  but  to  the 
Chinese  minister  and  the  Chinese  Government. 

Hence  it  becomes  pertinent  to  inquire  by  virtue  of  what  obligation 
or  under  what  pretense  of  authority  is  this  to  be  done.  By  reason  of 
what  conventional  stipulation,  or  principle  of  international  law,  or 
national  requirement,  or  international  comity  is  the  American  Congress 
to  do  this  thing? 

It  is  not  pretended  by  the  distinguished  premier  who  suggested  it, 
by  the  Chief  Executive  who  recommended  it,  or  by  the  honorable 
Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  this  Senate  in  so  far  as  we  are  advised 
by  any  report  from  that  committee  accompanying  the  measure,  and 
which  committee  now  demand  its  passage  in  pari  materia  with  more  re- 
strictive Chinese  legislation,  that  the  United  States  is  in  any  manner, 
either  by  treaty  stipulation  with  the  Chinese  Government,  by  any  prin- 
ciple of  national  or  international  law,  under  any  legal  obligation  what- 
ever to  make  such  indemnity.  If  such  an  obligation  existed  even  by 
the  remotest  implication  I  should  be  the  last  to  hesitate  a  moment  to 
vote  the  indemnity. 

I  would  maintain  inviolate  every  treaty  stipulation  so  long  as  the 
treaty  is  not  abrogated  by  act  of  Congress  or  the  concurrent  agreement 
of  the  two  governments.  I  would  violate  no  rule  of  international  law, 
no  requirement  exacted  by  the  comity  of  nations,  no  established  prac- 
tice or  precedents  intended  to  be  precedents  in  the  line  of  our  own 
nation,  or  any  existing  provision  or  requirement  of  Federal  law.  I 
would  break  no  plighted  faith,  resist  no  rightful  demand.  If  by  any 
of  the  claims  suggested  the  tax-payers  of  this  Republic  are  properly 
charged  with  payment  of  this  indemnity,  then  good  faith  requires  that 
it  should  be  promptly  paid.  But  this,  with  all  due  deference  to  the 
distinguished  committee  reporting  this  measure,  I  must  insist  is  not  so. 
There  is  no  pretense  here,  as  I  have  intimated,  either  by  the  honorable 
Secretary  of  State,  the  President  of  the  United  States,  or  the  distin- 
guished committee  which  reported  this  bill,  that  it  is  so. 

Entering  as  is  our  nation  on  what  would  seem  to  be  an  era  of  unrest, 
the  legitimate  consequence  of  the  constant  influx  to  our  midst  of  the 
most  objectionable  alien  element  of  Europe  and  Asia,  becoming  as  we 
are  every  day  more  liable  to  sporadic  inflictions  of  mob  violence  at  the 
hands  of  an  idle,  irresponsible,  and  dangerous  alien  element,  who  in 
many  instances  in  the  sacred  name  of  labor  and  the  rights  of  man 
would  strike  down  law,  inaugurate  anarchy,  destroy  property,  and  sac- 
rifice human  life,  it  might  be  well  before  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States  in  the  name  of  statesmanship,  and  of  that  exalted  and  somewhat 
etherial  notion  of  international  courtesy  and  grace,  which  is  sometimes 


17 

misleading,  to  pause  and  inquire  what  the  precedent  is  that  is  about 
to  be  established  by  the  American  Congress  in  the  passage  of  the  pend- 
ing measure. 

Is  it  one  upon  which  this  nation  can  afford  to  stand  in  justice  to  its 
own  citizens,  and  its  well-established  theories  of  international  law  in 
its  dealings  with  the  governments  of  earth,  in  the  coming  years  that 
shall  mark  our  national  existence?  Shall  we  now  in  the  dawn  of  this 
new  era  of  internal  discord,  when  for  the  first  time  in  our  national  ex- 
istence we  are  called  upon  to  contend  with  the  socialistic  and  anarchical 
elements,  heretofore  unknown  in  this  country,  and  so  dangerous  to  the 
peace  of  our  communities,  and  when  more  than  ever  before  our  large 
cities  are  subjected  to  the  devastating  influences  and  destructive  con- 
sequences of  mob  violence,  particularly  in  the  States  east  of  the  Rocky 
Mountains,  and  when  the  private  property  of  the  millions  of  aliens 
within  our  borders,  as  also  that  of  our  own  citizens,  is  in  greater  dan- 
ger perhaps  than  ever  before  of  the  torch  of  the  communist  and  anarch- 
ist, establish  the  doctrine  enunciated  in  the  pending  measure? 

What  is  the  precise  question  involved  ?  What  do  the  honorable  Com- 
mittee on  Foreign  Affairs  of  this  Senate  propose?  The  proposition 
stripped  of  every  element  of  disguise,  and  stated  in  its  real  nakedness 
and  virgin  attitude,  is  simply  and  purely  this:  That  the  Government 
of  the  United  States  will  indemnify  a  foreign  government  for  and  on 
account  of  losses  sustained  by  reason  of  mob  violence  by  subjects  of 
such  foreign  government,  aliens  to  our  Government,  who  have  volun- 
tarily come  to  our  shores,  committed  against  their  lives  and  property 
by  other  alien  residents,  subjects  of  other  foreign  powers,  in  open  vio- 
lation of  our  domestic  laws,  and  when  connected  with  neither  the  as- 
sailants nor  the  assailed  was  there  any  official  representative  of  either 
government,  nor  was  there  any  public  property  or  national  emblem  of 
either  government  in  any  manner  whatever  involved. 

That  is  the  proposition.  In  other  words,  we  are  called  upon  to  vote 
a  national  indemnity  to  the  Chinese  Government  for  and  on  account  of 
losses  sustained  and  injuries  suffered  by  certain  of  their  subjects  in  this 
country  at  the  hands  of  a  mob,  in  which  neither  American  official  nor 
American  citizens  participated,  and  of  which  they  had  no  knowledge, 
but  which  was  composed  exclusively  of  Swedish  and  Welsh  resident 
aliens.  That  this  can  be  done  upon  any  other  theory,  or  can  be  sus- 
tained by  any  other  principle  than  that  of  national  charity,  public  gen- 
erosity, or  pure  grace,  without  the  slightest  support  whatever  from  any 
principle  of  national  or  international  law  or  treaty  obligation,  I  most 
absolutely  and  emphatically  deny;  and  the  precedent  you  are  about  to 
establish  to-day,  however  strong  may  be  your  protestation,  that  it  shall 
not  be  regarded  as  a  precedent,  will,  I  doubt  not,  in  the  next  one  hun- 
dred years  of  our  history,  come  knocking  at  the  doors  of  the  national 
Congress  in  times  without  number,  and  at  the  vaults  of  the  national 
Treasury,  demand  of  our  posterity,  that  the  precedents  of  the  fathers 
be  observed,  though  the  people  of  the  Republic,  native  and  foreign  born, 
be  taxed  to  the  tune  of  millions  in  order  to  meet  the  demand  and  main- 
tain the  precedent  of  to-day  in  indemnifying  alien  governments  for 
losses  their  alien  resident  subjects  in  this  country  may  sustain  at  the 
hands  of  mobs  composed  of  other  irresponsible  bands  of  unnaturalized 
foreigners  who  may  set  our  laws  at  defiance,  unfurl  the  red  flag  in  our 
midst,  and  engage  in  the  destruction  of  life  and  property,  as  did  the 
Swedish  and  Welsh  aliens  at  Rock  Springs. 

MIT 2 


18 

But  in  considering  this  question  it  is  well  to  bear  in  mind  that  the 
demand  for  this  indemnity  does  not  come  from  the  Chinese  Government 
in  the  form  of  an  appeal  to  the  gracious  and  humane  sensibilities  of 
mankind  and  the  charitable  disposition  and  gracious  action  of  our  Gov- 
ernment. If  this  were  so  there  might  in  the  light  of  the  abhorrent 
attributes  of  the  outrage  complained  of  be  some  justification  on  the 
score  of  morals  and  humanity  and  national  sympathy  for  the  proposed 
appropriation.  But  this  is  not  so.  The  claim  upon  the  part  of  the 
Chinese  minister  is  based  upon  an  asserted  right  resulting  from  an  al- 
leged reciprocal  obligation  on  the  part  of  the  United  States  to  indemnify 
the  Chinese  subjects  who  suffered  loss  at  Rock  Springs.  He  bases  this 
claim  of  reciprocal  obligations  mainly  on  the  action  of  the  Chinese 
Government  in  sundry  instances  in  the  past  wherein  indemnity  has 
been  made  for  the  losses  of  American  citizens  in  China. 

This,  it  is  confidently  submitted,  is  a  claim  that  can  not  be  main- 
tained, as  has  been  most  ably  demonstrated  by  every  Secretary  of  State 
who  has  ever  discussed  the  subject,  including  Webster,  Marcy,  Fish, 
Evarts,  Elaine,  and  Bayard,  and,  without  any  reflection  upon  any  of 
the  others,  it  may  be  truthfully  said  by  none  more  ably  than  Secre- 
tary Bayard  in  his  exhaustive  and  unanswerable  reply  of  February  18 
last  to  the  demand  of  Cheng  Tsa  Ju,  the  Chinese  minister  at  Washing- 
ton. It  is  to  be  regretted,  however,  that  so  able,  dignified,  and  mas- 
terly a  defence  of  the  American  doctrine  on  this  subject  should  be,  in 
a  sense,  weakened  and  destroyed,  as  it  seems  to  me  it  has  been,  by  the 
suggestion  in  its  conclusion  that  the  President  recommend  Congress 
that,  to  use  his  own  language — 

Not  as  under  obligation  of  treaty  or  principle  of  international  law,  but  solely 
from  a  sentiment  of  generosity  and  equity  to  an  innocent  and  unfortunate  body 
of  men,  subjects  of  a  friendly  power,  *  *  *  it  may  be  reasonably  a  subject 
for  the  benevolent  consideration  of  Congress,  whether,  with  the  distinct  under- 
standing that  no  precedent  is  thereby  created,  or  liability  for  want  of  enforce- 
ment of  police  jurisdiction  in  the  Territories,  they  will  not,  ex  gratia,  grant  pe- 
cuniary relief  to  the  sufferers  in  the  case  now  before  us  to  the  extent  of  the  value 
of  the  property  of  which  they  were  so  outrageously  deprived  to  the  grave  dis- 
credit of  republican  institutions. 

So,  too,  the  President,  in  his  recent  message  of  March  2,  and  in  pur- 
suance of  the  recommendations  of  which  this  legislation  is  proposed, 
denies  in  the  most  emphatic  terms  the  existence  of  any  reciprocal  ob- 
ligation on  the  part  of  the  United  States  Government  to  indemnify 
the  Chinese  subjects  who  suffered  ,at  Rock  Springs;  but  following  the 
suggestion  of  his  Secretary  he  brings  that  suggestion  approvingly  to 
the  attention  of  Congress,  and  as  a  result  we  now  are  about  to  do,  on  the 
unanimous  recommendation  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  this 
body,  that  which  the  late  Secretary  Evarts,  now  a  distinguished  member 
of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Affairs  of  this  Senate;  the  late  Secretary 
Elaine,  the  late  distinguished  candidate  of  the  Republican  party  for 
President  of  the  United  States;  Secretary  Bayard,  the  present  Secre- 
tary of  State,  and  President  Cleveland  have  each  and  all  in  their 
turn  officially,  following  in  the  footsteps  of  their  no  less  illustrious 
predecessors,  demonstrated  by  the  most  conclusive,  able,  and  unan- 
swerable arguments  we  have  no  right  to  do.  And  this  is  called  states- 
manship ! 

If  this  appropriation  is  made  it  must  have  for  its  justification  one  or 
more  of  the  following  three  reasons,  or  for  its  excuse  a  fourth  reason  as 
hereinafter  suggested.  The  only  three  grounds  on  which  it  can  possi- 


11) 

bly  he  justified  in  the  sense  of  discharging  a  legal  obligation  are  the 
following: 

First.  The  existence  of  conventional  stipulations  between  the  two 
governments  creating  a  reciprocal  obligation  upon  the  part  of  the  United 
States  to  make  indemnity  in  such  a  case;  or  an  absolute  treaty  cove- 
nant to  make  indemnity  in  cases  of  the  character  under  consideration. 

Second.  International  obligation  resulting  from  the  principle  of  the 
good  neighborhood  of  nations  and  arising  out  of  the  good  faith  of  gov- 
ernments to  each  other  to  provide  indemnity  in  cases  of  the  character 
of  that  under  consideration. 

Third.  An  obligation  resulting  from  some  provision  or  requirement 
of  some  Federal  statute. 

The  only  ground  upon  which  the  proposed  action  may  be  excused, 
if  at  all,  is: 

Fourth.  A  moral  obligation  created  and  supported,  not  by  any  legal 
requirement,  but  resting  alone  on  the  gracious  sentiment  of  generosity 
and  national  sympathy,  and  the  discharge  of  which  can  be  nothing 
more  nor  less  than  an  act  of  national  charity,  pure  and  simple. 

At  first  glance  it  may  seem  to  some  that  if  we  exact  indemnity  from 
China  for  injuries  inflicted  on  our  citizens  in  that  country  and  for  prop- 
erty destroyed  by  mobs,  the  reciprocal  obligation  exists  upon  our  Gov- 
ernment to  indemnify  the  Chinese  Government  or  its  subjects  from  our 
national  Treasury  for  injuries  received  by  Chinese  subjects  here.  On 
reflection,  however,  the  reasons  why  this  is  not  so  and  can  not  possi- 
bly in  the  very  nature  of  the  case  be  so  will  be  seen  at  a  glance.  It  re- 
sults in  the  first  place  and  mainly  Ironi  the  absolutely  diverse  structure 
of  the  two  governments,  which  are  so  essentially  and  widely  different 
in  their  respective  political  organisms  and  functional  powers,  and  in 
their  machinery  and  modes  respectively  of  protecting  private  rights  and 
redressing  private  wrongs,  and  all  of  which  essential  and  radical  differ- 
ences have  been  fully  recognized  by  both  governments  in  every  treaty 
entered  into  between  the  two  states,  commencing  with  that  of  1844  and 
extending  through  those  of  1858,  and  known  as  our  commercial  treaty, 
and  1868,  known  as  the  Burlingame  treaty,  and  ending  with  that  of 
1880,  known  as  the  "emigration-restriction  treaty."  And  these  radi- 
cal differences  between  the  two  governments  in  and  of  themselves  inter- 
pose an  absolute  barrier  against  any  attempt  that  might  have  been 
made  to  make  the  conventional  stipulations  between  the  two  govern- 
ments in  any  respect  reciprocal. 

No  such  attempt  was  ever  made.  They  are  not  and  could  not  in 
the  very  nature  of  the  case  be  reciprocal.  There  never  was  a  time  in 
the  history  of  the  two  nations  when  the  rights,  and  privileges,  and 
immunities  of  American  citizens  in  China  bore  any  comparison  in  re- 
spect of  extent,  or  scope,  or  value  to  those  enjoyed  by  Chinese  subjects 
in  the  United  States.  In  the  one  case  they  were  surrounded  by  every 
manner  of  restriction  both  as  to  locality  of  residence  and  otherwise; 
while  in  the  latter  the  rights,  and  privileges,  and  immunities  extended 
to  and  enjoyed  by  Chinese  subjects  in  this  country  were,  until  the 
treaty  of  1880,  unrestrained  in  any  shape,  manner,  or  form,  either  as 
to  place  of  residence  or  otherwise;  and  they  were  accorded,  as  all  now 
here  are  accorded,  every  right  of  protection  of  life,  and  limb,  and  prop- 
erty that  is  accorded  by  our  system  of  laws  to  any  other  alien  resident, 
or  in  fact  to  any  of  our  own  citizens,  and  every  political  and  personal 
right  enjoyed  by  any  other  alien  of  the  most  favored  nation.  Even 
Drior  to  our  first  treaty  with  China,  that  of  1844,  at  a  time  when  no 


20 

American  citizen  could  rightfully,  or  with  any  degree  of  safety  to  life, 
or  limb,  or  property,  enter  Chinese  territory,  the  subjects  of  that  em- 
pire had  the  right  in  unlimited  numbers  to  come  to  and  reside  in  any 
part  of  our  vast  domain,  and  while  here  receive  the  same  protection  of 
our  laws  in  life  and  limb  and  property  that  were  accorded  to  subjects 
of  the  most  favored  nation  or  to  any  of  our  own  citizens. 

Prior  to  the  Burlingame  treaty  it  is  true  no  formal  right  by  treaty 
stipulation  or  otherwise  was  in  express  terms  accorded  to  Chinese  sub- 
jects to  come  to  this  country,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that  none 
such  was  necessary,  as  around  this  land  of  freedom,  this  asylum  for  the 
oppressed,  this  home  of  the  adventurer  and  hiding-place  of  the  crim- 
inals, mendicants,  and  contagion-stricken  of  earth  as  well,  no  Chinese 
wall  had  been  erected.  Our  doors,  until  the  treaty  of  1880,  which  in 
a  measure  provided  for  the  restriction  of  Chinese  immigration,  were 
open  to  all  the  millions  of  all  the  nations  of  the  earth — king  and  peas- 
ant, freeman  and  slave,  millionaire  and  pauper,  honest  yeoman  and  wan- 
dering sloth,  vigorous,  energetic,  industrious  men,  and  the  palsied,  lep- 
rous, loathsome  wrecks  of  living  deaths. 

While  prior  to  the  treaty  of  1880,  as  has  been  intimated,  Chinese  of 
all  classes  and  without  limit  as  to  number  or  character  could  come  to 
and  reside  in  any  part  or  portion  of  the  territory  of  the  United  States, 
engage  in  any  business,  occupation,  or  profession,  "go  and  come  of 
their  own  free  will  and  accord,"  and  were  entitled  to  and  received  the 
protection  of  all  domestic  laws  in  reference  to  the  rights  of  life,  limb, 
and  property  enjoyed  by  American  citizens;  during  all  these  years 
American  citizens,  and  certain  classes  only  of  these,  enjoyed  and  enjoy 
no  more  to-day,  the  meager  privilege  of  entering  the  sacred  precincts  of 
Chinese  territory,  alone  for  the  purposes  of  trade  only  prior  to  the  ex- 
istence of  the  Burlingame  treaty,  and  since  then  only  for  the  purposes 
of  trade,  curiosity,  or  as  teachers,  and  then  only  in  a  few  certain  speci- 
fied localities,  which  are  chosen,  in  the  language  of  the  treaty,  by 
"having  due  regard  to  the  feelings  of  the  people  in  the  location 
thereof." 

This  was  the  precise  state  of  the  case  prior  to  the  treaty  of  1880.  There 
was  in  the  situation  and  in  the  various  international  stipulations  prior 
to  that  date  no  essential  ingredient  of  reciprocity.  There  was  on  the 
contrary  an  entire  absence  of  every  element  necessary  to  the  creation 
of  reciprocal  obligations.  Nor  was  the  situation  in  this  respect  in  the 
least  changed  by  the  stipulations  of  the  treaty  of  1880,  inasmuch  as  this 
last  treaty,  while  guaranteeing  in  express  terms  to  all  Chinese  students, 
teachers,  merchants,  and  those  moved  by  curiosity,  who  might  desire  to 
come  to  the  United  States  from  China,  and  also  to  all  Chinese  laborers 
then  in  this  country,  and  which  was  but  an  affirmation  of  rights,  the  ex- 
istence of  which  could  not  under  oar  system  be  denied  before,  the  right  to 
"go  and  come  of  their  own  free  will  and  accord,"  and  in  addition  every 
right  possessed  by  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation,  that 
treaty  is  as  silent  as  the  grave  in  so  far  as  any  stipulation  is  concerned  look- 
ing to  equal,  orsimilar,  or  approximate  reciprocal  rights  of  American  citi- 
zens in  China,  or  which  would  give  enlargement  of  scope  to  the  restricted 
rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  theretofore  possessed  by  or  extended 
to  such  citizens  in  the  Chinese  Empire. 

In  view,  therefore,  of  the  rights,  privileges,  and  immunities  which  the 
subjects  of  the  two  nationalities  may  under  existing  policies  and  treaty 
stipulations  exercise  and  enjoy  respectively  within  the  jurisdiction  of 
the  other,  and  which,  it  must  be  confessed,  will  bear  no  comparison  the 


2L 

one  with  the  other  in  any  respect  whatever,  when  considered  in  the  light 
of  reciprocal  obligation,  bold  and  audacious  indeed  must  be  the  repre- 
sentative of  that  government  who  would  with  earnestness  in  hisdiplo- 
inatie  capacity,  and  by  elaborate  and  labored  argument  insist  that  the 
obligations  of  the  two  governments  were  in  virtue  of  these  treaty  stip- 
ulations, or  in  virtue  of  their  international  relations  in  any  respect  what- 
ever dependent  or  reciprocal.  Yet  such  is  the  attitude  of  the  Chinese 
Government  to-day.  Such  is  the  demand  of  the  Chinese  minister;  and 
while  denying  in  emphatic  terms  and  with  extended  arguments  the  ten- 
ability  and  justice  of  this  claim,  we,  at  the  same  time,  propose  by  this 
legislation  to  repudiate  our  own  arguments,  deny  our  own  position,  fal- 
sify our  established  theories,  and  with  uncovered  heads,  in  the  presence 
of  the  mandarins  of  the  Mongolian  Empire,  publicly  avow  our  complicity 
with  the  mobs  of  irresponsible  aliens  in  Wyoming — acknowledge  our 
national  guilt,  and  meekly,  quietly,  and  graciously  submit  to  theillegal 
demand. 

But  waiving  for  the  present  the  question  of  reciprocity,  what  are  the 
actual  stipulations  in  the  Burlingame  treaty  or  in  any  of  our  treaties 
with  China  that  could  by  any  possibility  be  brought  to  bear  in  any  pos- 
sible manner  favorably  upon  the  question  of  the  liability  of  the  United 
States  to  make  indemnity  in  the  case  of  the  sufferers  at  Rock  Springs. 

Article  VI  of  the  Burlingame  treaty  provides  as  follows: 

Chinese  subjects,  visiting  or  residing  in  the  United  States,  shall  enjoy  the  same 
privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  in  respect  of  travel  or  residence  as  may 
there  be  enjoyed  by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation. 

While  Article  III  of  the  treaty  of  November  17,  1880,  contains  the 
following: 

If  Chinese  laborers  or  Chinese  of  any  other  class,  now  either  permanently  or 
temporarily  residing  in  the  territory  of  the  United  States,  meet  with  ill-treat- 
ment at  the  hands  of  any  other  persons  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
will  exert  all  its  power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection  and  to  secure  to 
them  the  same  rights,  privileges,  immunities,  and  exemptions  as  may  be  enjoyed 
by  the  citizens  or  subjects  of  the  most  favored  nation,  and  to  which  they  are  en- 
titled by  treaty. 

But  surely  it  can  not  with  any  degree  of  propriety  be  said  that  these 
stipulations  clothe  a  Chinese  subject  with  any  other,  greater,  or  more 
enlarged  rights  or  privileges  than  are  possessed  by  any  alien  resident 
subjects  of  any  other  nationality.  These  are  but  declarations  of  a  rule 
that  has  existed  since  the  foundation  of  our  Government,  and  under 
which  aliens  of  all  lands  and  every  nationality  are  placed  on  a  plane  of 
exact  equality  in  the  matter  of  favor  by  our  domestic  law. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.     May  I  interrupt  the  Senator? 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.     Yes,  sir. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  May  I  call  the  attention  of  my  distinguished 
friend  to  all  this  line  of  Chinese  treaties  to  which  he  has  referred  and 
ask  whether  it  is  not  stated  in  article  14  of  the  treaty  of  1844  and  arti- 
cle 11  of  the  treaty  of  1858  and  in  all  these  treaties  that  where  mob 
violence  intervenes  the  authorities  of  the  respective  countries  will  use 
ever}r  exertion  to  bring  the  criminals  to  punishment  ?  And  then  in 
connection  with  that  (which  we  all  understand  is  in  all  these  treaties 
as  it  ought  to  be)  I  wish  to  ask  whether  any  of  the  persons  concerned 
in  the  Rock  Springs  violence  have  been  brought  to  punishment,  and 
whether  it  is  not  stated  in  our  official  reports  that  it  is  totally  imprac- 
ticable to  do  anything  about  that? 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  the  duty 
of  this  Government  under  the  several  treaty  stipulations  referred  to  by 


the  honorable  Senator  from  Vermont  to  do  everything  in  its  power  to 
protect  these  people  in  this  country  and  to  bring  the  offenders  to  pun- 
ishment. I  have  no  doubt  about  that. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.     Have  we  done  it? 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  The  mere  fact  that  there  may  be  a 
fa'ilure  to  find  an  indictment  in  a  given  case  where  the  proper  nec- 
essary, and  appropriate  judicial  tribunal  has  been  established,  would, 
it  seems  to  me,  be  no  reason  for  saying  that  they  would  have  a  right  to 
resort  to  the  national  Treasury  for  indemnity. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  But  the  question  I  put  to  my  friend  is  this,  and  it 
is  in  order  that  the  Senate  and  the  people  of  the  United  States  may  know 
how  the  fact  is:  I  wish  to  know,  there  having  been  twenty-five  or  thirty  of 
the  Chinese  killed  and  fifteen  or  twenty  others  badly  wounded,  and  prop- 
erty, as  it  is  said,  to  the  amount  of  $150,000  destroyed  by  a  mob  of  two 
or  three  hundred  persons,  whether  any  one  of  the  two  or  three  hundred 
persons  who  composed  this  mob  has  been  brought  to  justice  as  a  fact? 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  do  not  know  whether  they  have  or 
not;  but  I  will  say  to  the  Senator  from  Vermont  that  under  our  policy 
and  under  our  system  of  laws  there  is  but  one  way  to  determine  whether 
a  crime  has  been  committed,  and  that  is  by  an  investigation  by  the  proper 
judicial  tribunal  that  has  been  appointed  by  law  to  do  that. 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  There  can  be  negligence  between  nations  on  the 
part  of  governments  as  in  the  case  of  Great  Britain  about  the  rebel 
cruisers  and  as  other  nations  have  claimed  as  against  us.  One  nation 
as  between  itself  and  another  is  not  bound  by  the  internal  autonomy 
of  that  state,  but  it  looks  to  the  body  of  the  nation  to  carry  out  its 
obligations,  and  if  they  have  not  the  judicial  means  to  do  it,  for  one 
reason  or  another,  the  nation  that  is  injured  is  not  bound  by  the  failure 
of  the  nation  whose  people  committed  the  injury. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  The  Senator  from  Vermont  asked  me 
a  question  the  other  day  in  regard  to  what  I  thought  ought  to  be  done 
in  case  a  mob  should  commit  certain  violence  in  Canada.  It  will  be 
time  enough  to  settle  those  questions  when  they  come  up.  We  are  now 
discussing  the  question  as  to  whether  we  are  liable  to  China  in  this  par- 
ticular case  to  make  national  indemnity  out  of  the  national  funds;  and 
I  feel  that  we  have  no  right  to  assume  that  the  judicial  tribunals  of 
this  country  will  not  afford  relief.  I  ask  my  friend  from  Vermont,  in- 
asmuch as  no  part  of  this  appropriation,  as  I  understand,  is  to  indem- 
nify for  lives  lost,  but  is  simply  for  property  destroyed,  whether  he 
knows  whether  or  not  a  civil  suit  of  any  kind  or  character  has  ever 
been  commenced  by  any  Chinese  subject  who  suffered  loss  at  the  hands 
of  the  mob  at  Rock  Springs? 

Mr.  EDMUNDS.  I  do  not  know  of  any,  and  I  suppose  that  none 
has  been  brought,  because  when  it  was  seen  after  a  year  or  more  has 
now  gone  by  that  the  public  strength  of  the  Government  there  was  not 
sufficient  to  bring,  in  a  criminal  way,  any  one  of  this  mob  into  the 
presence  6f  a  court  of  justice  even,  the  poor  Chinaman  would  feel  that 
it  would  be  rather  hopeless  for  him  to  employ  even  so  distinguished  a 
man  as  my  friend  from  Oregon  as  his  counsel  to  bring  a  private  suit, 
and  particularly  if  he  be  dead. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  That  is  an  evasion  of  the  question. 
As  I  understand,  this  appropriation,  as  I  said  a  moment  ago,  is  intended 
in  no  particular  to  be  a  recompense  to  anybody,  either  the  legal  repre- 
sentatives of  those  who  lost  their  lives  or  the  Chinese  Government  for 
men  who  lost  their  lives,  but  is  intended  purely  and  wholly  to  in- 


23 

demnify,  not  the  representatives  of  anybody  so  far  as  individuals  are 
concerned,  but  to  indemnify  the  Chinese  Government  for  property  lost 
and  destroyed  by  certain  Chinese  subjects  at  Rock  Springs. 

Now.  I  say  it  is  pertinent,  especially  is  it  pertinent  in  answer  to  the 
inquiries  propounded  to  me  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont,  to  inquire 
whether  any  of  these  Chinese  subjects  who  suffered  loss  of  property  at 
Kock  Spunks  by  reason  of  this  mob  have  ever  attempted  in  any  shape, 
manner,  or  form  to  appeal  to  the  judicial  tribunals  of  Wyoming  for 
vindication;  and  if  they  have  not  as  a  matter  of  fact,  then  we  have  no 
right  to  assume  here  that  in  case  they  did  appeal  they  would  fail  to  get 
justice.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned  I  have  yet  to  learn  that  there  has 
been  any  civil  suit  brought  by  anybody. 

Referring  now  to  the  clause  of  the  treaty,  which  I  last  read,  I  say  that 
the  most  that  can  be  said  with  reference  to  these  treaty  stipulations, 
or  the  highest  office  that  can  possibjy  be  imputed  to  them,  is  that  while 
conferring  no  new  or  peculiar  rights  not  possessed  by  other  aliens,  they 
may  perhaps  be  held  as  constituting  a  pledge,  or  conferring  something 
in  the  nature  of  a  special  privilege  which  in  the  event  of  ill-treatment 
would  require  not  indemnity,  but  this  Government  to  "exert  all  its 
power  to  devise  measures  for  their  protection,"  which  would  secure  to 
them  those  rights  in  the  future  to  which  they  are  in  common  with  each 
and  ever}7  other  alien  resident  of  this  country  justly  entitled.  Only  this, 
no  more. 

That  is  to  say  to  enact  such  laws,  create  such  judicial  tribunals,  and 
take  such  legitimate  governmental  steps  as  will  secure  to  these  subjects 
the  rights  and  privileges  under  proper  ana  unitorm  forms  of  law,  and 
appropriate  remedial  tribunals,  already  attaching  to  them  equally  with 
every  other  foreigner  residing  in  this  country.  But  that  these  provis- 
ions in  any  manner  impose  an  obligation  upon  the  United  States  to 
indemnify  tor  losses  sustained  by  reason  of  infractions  of  our  local  and 
domestic  laws  by  lawless  and  irresponsible  mobs,  can  not  for  one  mo- 
ment be  maintained.  Nor  has  there  been  any  discrimination  whatever 
of  an  unfavorable  character  against  the  Chinese,  or  which  in  any  man- 
ner discriminates  against  them  in  any  of  the  laws  of  this  country, 
State,  national,  or  Territorial,  save  and  except  such  Federal  laws  as 
have  been  enacted  by  Congress  relating  to  the  restriction  of  Chinese 
immigration,  and  these,  as  we  all  know,  were  enacted  in  pursuance  of 
treaty  stipulations,  while  in  other  respects  they  are  favored,  not  per- 
haps above  other  alien  residents,  but  absolutely  above  citizens  of  our 
own  country  in  the  matter  of  the  selection  of  those  tribunals  through 
which  they  may  seek  redress  of  private  wrongs  or  the  enforcement  of 
their  private  rights.  The  Chinaman  who  has  suffered  wrong  in  this 
country  and  desires  to  seek  a  remedy  in  the  courts  may  select  at  his 
option  a  Federal  or  State  court,  whereas  to  citizens  of  our  own  coun- 
try having  controversies  with  citizens  in  the  same  State  the  right  to  a 
remedy  in  the  Federal  court  is  denied  except  in  special  cases,  and  thus 
in  the  one  case  very  frequently  the  alien  has  the  right  to  have  his  case 
reviewed  by  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States,  while  in  a  pre- 
cisely similar  case  the  citizen  of  this  country  must  be  content  with  the 
decision  of  the  State  court. 

Here,  then,  for  the  investigation  and  redress  of  injuries  to  the  life  and 
limb  and  property  of  resident  Chinese  subjects  are  established  courts, 
judicial  tribunals — Federal,  State,  and  Territorial — always  open  alike 
to  the  Chinese  resident,  other  foreigners,  and  our  own  citizens,  having 
full  and  complete  jurisdiction  and  ample  power  to  afford  a  complete 


remedy  for  every  wrong.  And  this  very  fact  precludes  every  supposi- 
tion to  the  effect  that  for  a  private  injury  to  life,  or  limb,  or  property  suf- 
fered by  a  Chinese  resident  within  our  jurisdiction  there  is  on  the  part  of 
any  such  Chinese  resident  or  his  home  government  any  existing  right  to 
demand  indemnity  from  the  National  Government  through  legislative 
or  administrative  action. 

But  how  strangely  different  is  the  case  with  our  citizens  in  China  ! 
What  judicial  system  has  that  empire  to  which  our  citizens  can  appeal 
for  redress  when  they  have  suffered  injuries?  To  what  tribunals  can 
they  resort  for  protection  and  indemnification?  What  power  attaches 
to  those  extraterritorial  tribunals  established  for  the  protection  of  their 
own  citizens  and  subjects  by  those  powers  in  treaty  stipulations  with 
China,  to  take  jurisdiction  of  or  determine  questions  as  to  the  liability 
of  China  to  aliens  ?  None,  whatever.  American  citizens,  therefore,  in 
China  are  entirely  helpless,  absolutely  remediless  in  the  matter  of  re- 
dress for  injuries  committed  on  them  in  so  far  as  any  appeal  to  estab- 
lished judicial  tribunals  in  that  country  is  concerned.  Hence  it  is  that 
their  remedy,  and  their  only  just  and  proper  remedy,  is  by  a  demand 
through  the  home  Government  on  the  Chinese  Government  for  national 
indemnity. 

It  has  been  said  elsewhere  in  advocacy  of  a  measure  similar  to  the 
one  under  discussion  that  our  Government  has  in  the  past  been  con- 
sistent in  the  one  thing  of  proclaiming  through  our  State  Department 
bad  law  on  this  question,  while  action  has  invariably  been  right,  and 
in  direct  conflict  with  the  position  assumed  and  advocated  from  time  to 
time  by  our  Government.  And  therefore  it  is  concluded  that  while  our 
diplomatic  theory  has  been  one  thing,  and  our  legislative  and  diplo- 
matic action  has  been  quite  another,  and  on  the  assumption  that  our 
action  has  been  right  and  our  theory  wrong,  that  the  precedent  has 
been  firmly  established  in  this  country  in  favor  of  the  policy  proposed 
by  the  pending  bill.  This,  however,  can  hardly  be  said  to  be  true,  and 
for  two  reasons: 

First.  In  glancing  back  through  the  diplomatic  and  legislative  his- 
tory of  this  Government  in  so  far  as  its  affirmative  action  has  been  con- 
cerned, as  contradistinguished  from  the  theory  it  has  advocated  in 
reference  to  this  and  cognate  questions,  it  will  be  observed  that  in 
nearly,  if  not  quite  every  case  wherein  national  indemnity  has  been 
recommended  by  the  executive  and  administrative  departments  of  the 
Government  in  approximate  and  similar  cases,  and  that  recommenda- 
tion has  been  adopted  and  acted  upon  by  Congress,  there  has  been  some 
ingredient  of  either  official  or  national  delinquency  on  our  part  in  ad- 
vance of  the  alleged  injury  and  which  in  whole  or  in  part  led  up  to  it 
on  the  one  hand,  or  on  the  other  some  official  or  property  attached  to 
or  belonging  to  the  government  making  the  demand,  or  some  emblem 
or  insignia  of  its  nationality  has  been  in  some  way  injured,  assailed  or 
involved  in  the  outrage  in  reference  to  which  the  indemnity  is  claimed. 
As,  for  instance,  in  the  case  of  the  New  Orleans  and  Key  West  riots  of 
1851,  when  the  Spanish  consulate  was  entered  and  plundered,  as  also 
the  office  of  the  Spanish  newspaper,  La  Union,  including  also,  it  is  true, 
several  coffee  houses,  tobacco  stores  and  other  property,  and  which 
riots  moreover  grew  out  of  a  high  state  of  public  feeling  as  the  result 
of  the  shooting  of  fifty  Americans  by  Spanish  authorities  while  aiding 
in  the  attempted  insurrection  in  Cuba. 

But  even  in  that  case,  in  which  an  insult  was  inflicted  on  the  Span- 
ish flag,  our  Government,  by  its  then  Secretary  of  State,  Mr.  Webster, 


25 

strongly  and  ably  drew  the  distinction  between  injuries  that  consti- 
tuted an  insult  to  the  Spanish  ilagand  those  which  merely  affected  the 
property  of  Spanish  subjects,  and  insisted  that  inasmuch  as  the  out- 
rage "  was  one  perpetrated  by  a  mob,  composed  of  irresponsible  per- 
sons, tlu-  names  of  none  of  whom  were  known  to  the  Government," 
and  inasmuch  as  "  neither  any  officer  nor  agent  of  the  Government  of 
the  United  States,  high  or  low,  nor  any  officer  of  the  State  of  Louisiana, 
high  or  low,  or  of  the  municipal  government  of  the  city  of  New  Or- 
leans, took  any  part  in  the  proceedings,  or  gave  it  any  degree  of  counte- 
nance whatever,"  that  while  the  Spanish  consul  might  claim  special 
indemnity,  the  ordinary  Spanish  subjects  who  had  come  to  this  coun- 
try to  mingle  with  our  own  citizens  and  here  pursue  their  private  busi- 
ness and  objects  were  not  entitled  to  such  indemnity,  but  on  the  con- 
trary must  seek  their  remedy  alike  with  our  own  citizens,  some  of 
whom  at  the  same  time  suffered  at  the  hands  of  this  identical  mob,  in 
the  judicial  tribunals  of  our  country.  Rf*rKTOtt  I  .lrM*?»r\ 

And  in  pursuance  of  this  position  of  Mr.  Webster,  the  then  President 
of  the  United  States,  Mr.  Filluiore,  in  his  annual  message  to  Congress 
in  December,  1851,  made  the  following  recommendation:  "That  pro- 
vision be  made  for  such  indemnity  to  him  (the  Spanish  consul)  as  a 
just  regard  for  the  honor  of  the  nation  and  the  respect  which  is  due  to 
a  friendly  power,  in  your  judgment  seem  to  require,"  but  declined  to 
make  any  recommendation  for  the  indemnity  of  ordinary  Spanish  res- 
idents who  suffered  by  the  same  mob. 

It  is  true  indemnity  was  subsequently  made  by  Congress,  but  how 
and  with  what  protestation?  And  this  brings  me,  secondly,  to  remark 
that  an  examination  of  the  records  will  show,  I  think,  in  every  case 
perhaps  wherein  indemnity  has  been  actually  made  in  any  case  in  any 
respect  similar  in  its  facts  to  the  Wyoming  riots,  it  has  been  distinctly 
and  positively  asserted  and  accompanied  with  a  distinct  and  emphatic 
protestation  when  recommended,  that  it  was  not  made  in  pursuance 
of  any  legal  obligation,  or  by  virtue  of  any  obligation  resulting  from 
treaty  stipulation,  or  principle  of  international  law,  and  that  such  action 
was  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  precedent  in  the  future.  ;  j£ 

This  was  the  position  of  Secretary  Webster,  President  Fillmore,  and 
Senator  Mason,  then  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations 
of  this  body,  when  indemnity  was.  under  such  protestations  and  decla- 
rations, finally  made  to  Spanish  subjects  for  injuries  received  in  the  riots 
at  New  Orleans  and  Key  West.  And  in  the  case  we  are  now  consider- 
ing, as  has  been  seen,  both  Secretary  Bayard  and  the  President,  while 
recommending  the  indemnity,  distinctly  and  ably  avow  and  insist  by 
elaborate  argument  that  there  is  no  legal  obligation,  and  the  United 
States  is  not,  to  use  the  language  of  the  able  Secretary,  under  "  any 
obligation  of  treaty  or  international  law,  "to  make  it,  but  on  the  con- 
trary they  place  it  wholly  and  distinctly  on  the  ground,  to  again  use 
the  language  of  the  distinguished  Secretary,  of  "a  sentiment  of  gen- 
erosity and  pity  to  an  innocent  and  unfortunate  body  of  men,  subjects 
of  a  friendly  power,"  and  protest  that  if  indemnity  is  made  it  shall 
be,  and  I  again  quote  the  language  of  the  Secretary — 

With  the  distinct  understanding  that  no  precedent  is  thereby  created  or  lia- 
bility for  want  of  proper  enforcement  of  police  jurisdiction  in  the  Territories — 

While  the  President  in  his  message  transmitting  the  demand  of  the 
Chinese  Government  and  the  suggestions  of  the  Secretary  of  State  at- 
tracts the  special  attention  of  Congress  to  that  portion  of  the  Secre- 
tary's letter  from  which  I  have  just  quoted  and  gives  it  his  unquali- 
fied approval. 


26 

The  proposed  appropriation  then  of  §150, 000  as  Chinese  indemnity  is 
not  because  of  any  legal  obligation  to  make  it,  not  because  any  reciprocal 
claim  demands  it,  not  because  any  principle  of  international  law  or  any 
conventional  stipulations  require  it,  but,  on  the  contrary,  is  confessedly 
an  art  of  charity  and  of  pure  benevolence.  For  one,  while  I  would  give 
to  every  Chinaman  now  in  this  country  that  full  and  complete  protection 
of  life  and  limb  and  property  that  is  afforded  by  our  domestic  laws  to 
the  most  favored  of  our  own  citizens,  I  shall  never  vote  to  indemnify 
from  the  national  Treasury  Chinese  subjects  in  this  country,  or  the  sub- 
jects of  any  foreign  country  on  earth,  voluntary  alien  residents  within 
our  jurisdiction,  for  losses  sustained  or  iuj  uries  suffered  at  the  hands  of 
mob  violence,  especially  when  such  mobs  are  constituted  wholly  and 
exclusively,  as  was  so  in  the  case  of  the  Wyoming  riots,  by  other  alien 
residents  and  law  breakers  within  our  territory,  so  long  as  hundreds 
and  thousands  of  our  own  citizens  who  have  suffered  losses  to  the  extent 
of  untold  millions  by  reason  of  depredations  by  the  wards  of  this  Gov- 
ernment— the  various  Indian  tribes  of  the  country — are  compelled  to  go 
without  indemnification  or  payment  for  such  losses. 

The  records  of  our  country  show  adjudicated  claims  amounting  to 
millions  of  dollars  due  and  owing  citizens  of  this  country  in  the  West- 
ern States  and  Territories  for  losses  suffered  by  them  in  life,  and  limb, 
and  property,  through  the  murders  and  depredations  of  the  wards  of 
this  Government,  then  and  now  in  treaty  relation  with  the  Govern- 
ment, and  who  from  time  to  time  during  the  past  fifty  years  have  red- 
dened our  frontiers  with  the  blood  of  the  pioneers,  pillaged,  burned, 
and  destroyed  millions  of  their  private  property,  leaving  their  homes  in 
ashes,  putting  many  of  them  to  death  through  slow  and  terrible  tort- 
uras,  unknown  and  unpracticed  save  by  savage  men.  These  claims  of 
our  own  citizens  must  go  unpaid,  must  be  ignored  by  Congress,  must 
be  repudiated  by  the  nation. 

Mr.  DAWES.  I  should  like  to  inquire  of  my  friend  if  the  records 
report  any  account  on  the  other  side  of  the  spoliations  committed  on 
the  Indians,  or  if  there  is  any  objection  to  going  into  an  accounting  be- 
tween the  United  States  and  the  Indians  to  determine  what  would  be 
a  just  balance  when  you  come  to  put  a  fair  estimate  upon  the  property 
which  has  been  wrested  from  the  Indians,  and  make  compensation  for 
the  property  which  has  been  destroyed  by  the  ravages  of  war  upon  the 
defenseless  Indians.  I  do  not  understand  that  the  United  States  raises 
any  objection  to  paying  any  honest  claim  which  comes  under  the  name 
of  an  Indian  depredation,  but  I  do  understand  that  the  United  States 
is  coming  at  last  to  the  idea  that  there  is  an  account  on  both  sides,  and 
that  it  is  quite  time  that  the  Indian  had  some  consideration  in  the  court 
of  conscience  for  the  depredations  that  have  been  committed  upon  him. 

It  is  quite  fashionable  to  talk  about  Indian  depredations  and  to  cry 
out  against  the  Government  of  the  United  States  because  they  have 
swollen  to  the  large  amount  stated  by  the  Senator.  I  do  not  hear  of 
anybody  who  takes  the  slightest  concern  about  the  question  whether 
the  Indian  himself  has  had  an  injustice  done  him. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  I  differ  with  the  honorable  Senator 
from  Massachusetts.  I  think  there  is  at  least  one  Senator  on  this  floor 
who  takes  considerable  concern  in  behalf  of  the  Indian,  and  I  am  satis- 
fied furthermore  that  so  long  as  we  have  the  distinguished  Senator  from 
Massachusetts  at  the  head  of  the  Committee  on  Indian  Affairs  of  this 
body  the  Indians  of  this  country  will  not  suffer  violence  at  the  hands 
of  the  Senate  at  least. 


Now.  with  reference  to  the  offset  the  Senator  talks  about,  of  course 
we  shall  discuss  that  when  we  come  to  it.  All  I  know  is  that  some 
$13,000,000  have  been  adjudicated.  The  claims  are  not  mere  claims 
simply  sworn  to  by  the  claimants  lor  damages  suffered  by  the  fron- 
tiersmen and  the  pioneers  of  this  country  by  reason  of  Indian  depre- 
dations, but  they  are  claims  tlfat  have  been  investigated  under  the 
authority  of  Congress  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior.  Evidence  has 
been  taken:  adjudications  have  been  had  so  far  as  adjudications  can  be 
made  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior,  and  the  claims  have  been  for- 
warded to  Congress.  1  am  not  aware,  on  the  other  hand,  that  an  ac- 
counting has  been  had  or  any  adjudication  has  been  had  in  regard  to 
the  claims  referred  to  by  the  Senator  from  Massachusetts.  In  addi- 
tion to  all  that  my  understanding  is  that  whatever  has  been  done  with 
reference  to  transferring  the  title  to  the  Indian  country  has  been  done 
not  only  with  the  consent  but  under  the  direction  of  the  United  States, 
and  done  by  treaty,  by  various  Indian  treaties  that  have  been  entered 
into  under  the  direction  of  Congress.  Those  treaties  have  been  ap- 
proved by  Congress. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  The  hour  of  2  o'clock  having  arrived, 
it  is  the  duty  of  the  Chair  to  lay  before  the  Senate  the  unfinished  busi- 
ness, being  the  bill  (S.  1812)  to  provide  for  taxation  of  railroad-grant 
lands,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Mr.  CULLOM.  I  hope  the  Senate  will  give  the  Senator  from  Ore- 
gon permission  to  proceed  until  he  has  concluded  his  remarks. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  If  there  be  no  objection  the  Senator 
from  Oregon  will  proceed. 

Mi.  KVAKTS.  I  was  about  to  ask  whether  this  matter  might  not 
be  continued  until  we  can  conclude  this  discussion.  I  am  desirous  of 
speaking,  but  not  at  any  length. 

Mr.  PLUMB.  The  tax  bill  has  been  a  long  time  before  the  Senate. 
There  are  a  great  many  reasons  why  it  should  be  passed  at  an  early  day 
if  it  is  to  be  passed  at  all.  While  I  would  not  interfere  with  the  wishes 
of  any  Senator  beyond  an  absolute  necessity,  I  think  in  this  case  I  ought 
to  insist  that  the  tax  bill  retain  its  place.  Debate  has  been  nearly  con- 
cluded; in  fact,  it  has  been  concluded  on  all  the  features  of  the  bill 
itself,  and  I  think  it  can  be  disposed  of  in  a  very  short  time. 

The  PRESIDENT  pro  tempore.  Does  the  Senator  from  Kansas  object 
to  the  Senator  from  Oregon  proceeding? 

Mr.  PLUMB.  I  do  not  object  to  the  Senator  from  Oregon  conclud- 
ing his  remarks. 

Mr.  DA  WES.  I  owe  an  apology  to  the  Senator  from  Oregon  for  in- 
terrupting him  at  all,  but  I  do  not  mean  by  what  I  have  said  to  doubt 
that  there  are  a  great  many  just  claims  under  the  name  of  Indian  dep- 
redation claims,  and  that  some  of  them  ought  to  be  paid ;  and  it  is  a 
great  hardship  that  they  have  not  been  paid.  Nor  do  I  object  to  any 
transaction  with  the  Indians  under  the  form  of  treaties  by  which  we 
have  obtained  their  property  through  treaty,  hard  as  those  treaties 
were.  They  have  been  with  the  consent  of  the  Indians,  however  ob- 
tained. 

But  beyond  all  that,  outside  of  all  that,  the  Senator  can  not  be  igno- 
rant of  the  fact  that  violent  hands  have  been  laid  upon  Indian  posses- 
sions, personal  property  and  real  property,  and  they  have  been  driven 
at  the  point  of  the  bayonet  from  possessions  which  they  held  under  a 
title  that  recited  it  as  a  perpetual  inheritance  by  the  graves  of  their 
fathers.  Whenever  the  Senator  calls  attention  to  the  enormous  amount 


28 

of  claims  against  the  Indian,  all  I  say  is  that  he  forgets  that  the  Indian 
himself  has  a  just  claim  upon  the  Government  of  the  United  States  for 
remuneration.  Whether  he  is  likely  to  be  any  better  off  on  account  of 
the  personal  allusion  the  Senator  has  been  kind  enough  to  make  to  me, 
does  not  seem  to  be  a  matter  very  hopeful  to  him.  I  trust  that  he  may 
have  a  foundation  in  the  justice  aiiA  conscience  of  the  Government 
which  will  be  of  more  service  to  him  than  any  such  service  as  the  Sena- 
tor attributes  to  me. 

Mr.  MITCHELL,  of  Oregon.  When  we  come  to  adjudicate  that  side 
of  the  account,  it  should  be  against  the  Government  and  not  against 
claims  by  citizens.  Waiving  that  for  the  present,  I  will  resume. 

On  these  claimants  the  back  of  the  Republic  must  be  turned;  in 
their  faces  the  doors  of  the  Government  must  be  closed;  to  their  ap- 
peals no  response  is  given;  their  bills  for  relief  by  the  scores  and  hun- 
dreds must  be  consigned  to  the  pigeon-holes  of  the  Committees  of  Con- 
gress, there  to  slumber  the  sleep  of  legislative  death;  while  scarcely  has 
the  cry  of  the  alien  mob  in  Wyoming  subsided  until  the  Government 
of  the  United  States,  at  the  demand  of  the  Chinese  Empire,  turns  a 
patronizing  and  willing  ear  and  springs  with  alacrity  to  the  front  for 
the  purpose  of  indemnifying  that  government,  on  the  principle  of  be- 
nevolence and  charity,  for  losses  sustained  by  its  subjects  who  are  not 
our  citizens,  and  who  have  suffered  losses  at  the  hands  of  an  alien  mob. 
This  may  be  statesmanship  worthy  of  the  leaders  of  a  great  govern- 
ment. For  one,  I  fail  to  see  in  it  any  element  of  justice. 

For  one,  while  millions  of  dollars  of  claims  of  our  own  citizens  in 
the  States  and  Territories  of  the  West,  arising  through  losses  sustained 
by  them  through  Indian  depredations  while  fighting  the  rough  battles 
of  'frontier  life  and  establishing  the  foundations  of  empire  in  the  dis- 
tant West,  and  which  claims  have,  under  the  authority  of  law,  been 
investigated  and  found  correct,  remain  unpaid,  I  do  not  propose  to  in- 
sult them  as  a  portion  of  the  taxpayers  of  this  country  by  voting  to 
appropriate  their  money  as  a  charity  and  as  an  act  of  benevolence  to 
the  Chinese  Government  as  indemnity  for  the  losses  suffered  by  a  few 
of  their  alien  residents  in  this  country  at  the  hands  of  an  incendiary 
mob  composed  of  another  set  of  equally  objectionable  aliens  from  some 
other  foreign  country.  If  we  are  going  to  deal  in  charity,  then  we  are 
taught  that  charity  should  commence  at  home. 

At  all  events  so  long  as  there  remain  unpaid  millions  of  dollars  of 
the  character  of  claims  I  have  described  due  our  own  citizens,  the  pay- 
ment of  which  could  in  no  sense  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  benevolence, 
but  rather  the  discharge  of  a  just,  legal,  and  righteous  obligation,  I  am 
unwilling  for  one  to  vote  to  indemnify  the  Chinese  for  losses  where  it 
is  admitted  we  are  under  no  obligation  to  do  so,  nor  in  any  manner 
bound  to  do  so  by  any  principle  of  international  law,  Federal  statute, 
or  conventional  stipulation. 

In  response  to  my  question  of  the  day  before  yesterday,  if  I  did  not 
misunderstand  the  honorable  Senator  from  Vermont,  he  replied  that 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  would  not  have  been  under  any 
legal  obligation  to  make  indemnity  from  the  national  Treasury  had 
the  sufferers  at  Rock  Springs  been  of  our  own  citizens  instead  of  Chinese 
subjects.  Nor  would  the  Senator  in  such  a  case,  as  I  understand  him, 
be  willing  to  vote  an  indemnity  as  a  matter  of  benevolence  or  charity. 

For  one,  Mr.  President,  while  I  am  in  favor  of  according  to  each  and 
every  person  within  our  borders,  of  every  name  and  color  and  creed 
and  nationality,  the  equal  protection  of  the  laws,  I  am  unwilling  that 


29 

Congress  shall  do  that  which  the  States  respectively  are  by  the  fourteenth 
amendment  to  the  Constitution  prohibited  from  doing — that  is,  deny  to 
any  person  within  the  jurisdiction  of  a  vState  the  equal  protection  of  the 
laws — by  giving  to  the  subjects  of  the  Chinese  Empire  in  our  midst  in- 
finitely greater  protection,  and  throwing  around  their  lives  and  limbs 
and  property  a  more  ample  mantle  of  protecting  care  than  are  accorded 
to  our  own  citizens.  When  we  say  to  our  own  citizens,  who  suffer  at  the 
hands  of  the  mob:  "You  have  your  remedy  in  the  judicial  tribunals 
of  the  country,  and  there  alone;  go  seek  your  redress  there, "  and  in 
the  same  breath  say  to  aliens  in  our  midst:  "  You  have  not  only  the 
right  of  our  own  citizens  to  seek  relief  in  the  established  courts  of  the 
country,  but  in  addition,  or  in  case  of  failure  in  the  courts,  you  are 
entitled  to  indemnity  through  act  of  Congress  by  appropriation  from 
the  national  Treasury,"  wre  declare  a  policy  which  in  my  judgment  is 
in  direct  contravention  of  the  principle — not  the  provision,  because  it 
operates  solely  on  the  States — of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
quoted  on  yesterday  by  the  Senator  from  Vermont. 

In  other  words,  by  such  a  policy  we  accord  to  aliens  in  our  midst 
rights,  privileges,  and  guarantees  which  we  deny  to  our  own  citizens. 
Or  to  state  the  case  in  another  form,  we  create  and  recognize  and  ad- 
vocate by  Congress  an  inequality  of  protection  forbidden  in  the  States 
by  the  fourteenth  amendment  to  the  Constitution,  giving  the  preference, 
and  the  fuller,  more  complete,  and  ampler  protection  to  the  Chinese 
subject  than  to  our  own,  and  subordinating  the  claims  of  our  own  citi- 
zens to  the  higher  and  preferred  claims  of  the  alien.  This,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, is  the  inevitable  logic  of  the  pending  bill. 

I  am  not  surprised  that  there  is  a  failure  on  the  part  of  the  distin- 
guished committee  reporting  this  measure  to  submit  with  it  a  report 
stating  the  grounds  upon  which  that  committee  were  so  unanimous  in 
its  recommendation;  nor  am  I  surprised  at  the  evident  anxiety  of  the 
honorable  chairman  of  that  committee  to  choke  off  discussion  and  rush 
this  measure  through  communi  consensu  and  without  debate;  and  on  the 
assumption  that  inasmuch  as  the  distinguished  committee  of  which  he  is 
chairman  had  unanimously  reported  the  bill,  that  therefore  it  is  a  mat- 
ter of  impossibility  that  there  could  be  any  two  sides  to  the  question. 

I  regard  this  bill,  Mr.  President,  as  an  insult  to  American  citizens, 
as  an  act  of  flagrant  and  uncalled-tor  partiality  to  alien  residents,  oper- 
ating as  a  gross  injustice  to  those  who,  if  preferences  are  to  be  given, 
are  by  every  consideration  that  springs  from  the  relation  of  citizenship 
justly  entitled  to  them. 

While  we  are  manifesting  so  much  concern  for  the  Chinese  Govern- 
ment and  for  the  protection  and  indemnification  of  their  subjects,  it 
would  be  well  perhaps  to  remember  the  millions  of  dollars'  worth  of 
losses  sustained  by  our  own  citizens  along  our  Southern  Texan  front- 
iers by  the  destruction  and  capture  of  stock,  the  property  of  American 
citizens,  by  raids  from  Mexicans.  Although  the  line  has  been  guarded 
as  best  it  could  be  by  the  Texan  Rangers  and  Federal  troops,  our  citi- 
zens have  suffered  to  the  extent  of  millions  of  dollars,  and  yet  not  so 
much  as  a  demand  for  indemnity  is  made  by  our  Governmemt  in  be- 
half of  our  own  citizens,  although  they  have  suffered  through  raids  on 
our  own  soil  from  marauding  subjects  of  a  foreign  power. 

Are  the  Senators  from  Texas  on  this  floor,  whose  immediate  constit- 
uents have  suffered  so  greatly  in  this  manner,  willing  to  vote  this  char- 
ity to  Chinese  subjects  while  the  just  claims  of  their  constituents, 
citizens  of  their  State,  and  of  our  common  country  are  wholly  ignored  ? 


30 

What  will  our  fellow-citizens  in  Arizona  and  New  Mexico,  who  for 
years  past  have  suffered  so  greatly  and  who  are  even  now  and  for  months 
past  have  been  subjected  to  the  incessant  and  murderous  raids  of  the 
Indian  bandit,  Geronimo,  and  his  murderous  band,  think  of  a  Con- 
gress of  the  United  States  that  will  employ  its  time  in  appropriating 
the  national  funds  as  a  charity  in  indemnification  of  Chinese  subjects 
who  have  suffered  at  the  hands  of  an  alien  mob,  while  for  our  own 
citizens  and  pioneers  not  so  much  as  a  word  of  sympathy  is  extended? 

While  we  must  not  for  a  moment,  of  course,  presume  that  any  other 
motives  than  those  which  spring  from  the  purest  fountains  of  patriot- 
ism and  from  the  highest  and  best  considerations  of  public  justice,  and 
the  loftiest  aspirations  of  statesmanship,  the  most  enlightened  views  of 
public  policy,  could  influence  the  distinguished  Committee  on  Foreign 
Affairs,  who  have,  with  a  unanimity  that  is  charming  to  contemplate, 
reported  this  bill,  I  have,  I  confess,  in  my  verdancy  and  feeble  inability 
to  grasp  this  higher  order  of  statesmanship  to  which  that  committee  has 
risen  in  reporting  this  measure,  and  in  support  of  which  they  have  for 
reasons  best  known  to  themselves  failed  to  furnish  any  reasons  in  the 
shape  of  a  committee  report,  been  inclined  to  the  belief  that  if  perchance 
some  portion  of  that  committee  had  been  so  fortunate  or  unfortunate,  as 
the  case  may  be,  to  have  resided  west  of  the  Mississippi  River,  and  all 
had  been  so  located  as  to  have  been  less  subject  to  the  blandishments 
and  plausible  arguments  of  the  able  representatives  of  the  Chinese  Gov- 
ernment in  this  city,  that  perhaps  a  somewhat  different  view  might  have 
been  taken  of  this  subject. 

It  has  been  suggested  elsewhere  that  by  voting  this  indemnity  we 
place  our  Government  in  more  intimate  relations  and  on  a  more  friendly 
footing  with  the  Chinese  officials  and  will  thus  enable  them  to  secure 
such  modifications  of  our  present  treaties  with  China  as  will  result  in 
the  near  future  in  the  absolute  exclusion  of  Chinese  immigrants  in  the 
future.  On  the  contrary,  Mr.  President,  in  my  j  udgment  the  effect 
will  be  the  very  reverse.  Let  it  once  be  understood  that  this  Govern- 
ment is  committed  to  the  policy  of  promptly  indemnifying  out  of  the 
National  Treasury  for  any  and  all  property  of  Chinese  subjects  in  this 
country  that  may  be  destroyed  or  lost  at  the  hands  of  mobs;  let  it  be 
understood  that  these  alien  subjects  have  not  only  all  the  rights  of 
American  citizens  under  like  circumstances  of  appealing  to  the  courts, 
State  and  Federal,  but  in  addition  can  make  rightful  claim  upon  the 
Treasury  of  the  United  States,  and  then  the  Chinese  Government  will 
in  my  judgment  be  more  loth  than  than  ever  before  to  consent  to  any 
arrangement  that  will  tend  to  the  exclusion  of  Chinese  immigrants  to 
this  country. 

It  will  be  time  enough  to  placate  the  Chinese  officials  after  our  own 
diplomatists,  and  those  who  for  the  present  direct  and  control  the  po- 
litical destinies  of  this  Government,  are  educated  to  a  realizing  sense  of 
the  imminent  peril  to  which  our  country  is  being  rapidly  subjected,  not 
alone  from  a  deluge  of  Oriental  slaves,  not  alone  from  the  blighting 
swarms  of  Asian  migration,  but  from  the  still  more  dangerous  red- 
handed  anarchist  and  communistic  elements  pouring  in  upon  us  from 
the  lowest,  vilest,  and  criminally  lawless  classes  of  European  life. 

It  is  our  own  people,  our  own  statesmen,  our  own  officials  that  should 
be  brought  to  a  realizing  sense  of  impending  dangers,  their  causes  and 
the  remedy;  that  should  be  stimulated  to  arouse  themselves,  shake  off 
the  dull  lethargy  of  at  least  apparent  ignorance  in  reference  to  the 
vital  questions  of  the  hour,  and  of  positive  inaction,  vindicate  their 


31 

own  intelligence,  statesmanship,  and  patriotism  by  rising  to  a  proper 
comprehension  <>!'  the  magnitude  of  the  evils  that  confront  us,  and 
ma^p  with  ability.  energy,  effectiveness,  and  power  a  subject  than 
which  none  more  important,  none  more  seriously  involving  the  pros- 
pective peace  anil  prosperity  of  the  country,  the  stability  of  American 
institutions,  the  security  of  lii'e  and  property,  the  integrity  of  free 
labor,  and  the  welfare  of  modern  civilization  on  this  continent,  ever 
engaged  the  attention  of  the  American  people  or  challenged  the  pre- 
science, ability,  and  patriotism  of  American  statesmen. 

The  times  are  not  propitious,  I  submit,  when  the  followers  of  the  red 
llag  arc  plotting  treason  against  law  and  order  and  inciting  to  riot  and 
bloodshed  and  anarchy,  in  which  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
can  with  prudence  and  propriety,  or  in  justice  to  its  own  citizens  an- 
nounce to  the  governments  of  earth,  civilized  and  barbaric,  Christian 
and  Pagan,  that  we  stand  ready  to  respond  to  each  and  all  of  these  on 
demand,  in  a  money  indemnity  from  the  Treasury  of  the  United  States, 
for  injuries  that  may  be  suffered  by  their  subjects  resident  here,  by  rea- 
son of  mob  violence.  The  people  of  this  country,  the  present  tax-pay- 
ers, the  lovers  of  peace,  and  justice  to  our  own  citizens,  and  the  brave 
defenders  in  every  proper  form  of  law  and  order,  will  not,  I  fancy,  relish 
the  declaration  of  a  policy  such  as  this,  which  pledges  them  individually 
and  collectively  to  the  payment  of  all  such  claims,  whether  amounting 
toa  few  hundred  thousand  or  many  millions  of  dollars;  nor  will  our  pos- 
terity, when  the  generations  of  the  present  shall  slumber  with  their 
fathers,  regard  with  favor  the  establishment  of  precedents  by  us  that 
commit  them  and  their  posterity  to  a  like  policy. 

This  bill  will  pass.  It  is  the  wish  of  the  administration  it  should 
pa>s.  while  our  distinguished  Committee  on  Foreign  Relations  of  this 
Senate  while  tinkering  with  restriction  acts,  at  best  mere  delusions 
and  snares  when  considered  as  a  remedy  for  the  evil  against  which 
they  are  directed,  handling  with  diplomatic  fingers,  kid-gloved,  for  fear 
of  giving  offense  to  the  Chinese  minister,  this  overshadowing  question 
of  Chinese  invasion,  and  while  refusing  so  far  as  heard  from  todeclnre, 
when  properly  called  upon  to  do  so,  that  they  or  a  majority  of  them 
are  in  favor  of  providing  for  the  future  exclusion  of  Chinese  immigra- 
tion to  this  country  even  by  diplomatic  arrangement  between  the  two 
governments,  recommend  it. 

This  measure  wil  1  doubtless  receive  nearly  if  not  every  vote  of  this  body 
cast  on  its  final  passage,  and  for  this  protest  I  shall  doubtless  be  charged 
here  and  elsewhere  with  either  playing  the  part  of  the  demagogue,  or 
lacking  in  ability  to  comprehend  those  delicate  questions  involved  in 
international  controversies,  and  which  seem  at  least  in  this  case  to  de- 
mand that  while  with  one  voice  protesting  the  non-tenability  of  the 
demand,  and  the  absence  of  all  legal  obligation,  while  stoutly  assert- 
ing that  by  no  principle  of  governmental  reciprocity,  conventional  stipu- 
lation, or  requirement  of  international  law,  are  we  under  any  obliga- 
tion whatever  to  do  this  thing:  yet  in  order  that  it  may  not  be  said  we 
are  not  dealing  with  China  by  reason  of  her  weakness  as  compared  with 
some  other  nations,  or  by  reason  of  some  supposed  prejudice  we  have 
against  her  subjects  here,  as  we  would  deal  with  such  mightier  powers, 
we  must  as  an  act  of  benevolence  and  out  of  pure  charity  make  this 
donation. 

If  we  are  dealing  thus  with  China  in  this  instance  prompted  by  any 
of  the  considerations  just  suggested,  as  I  fear  we  are,  and  differently 
from  that  which  our  sense  of  right  and  of  public  justice,  our  views  of 


32 

international  law,  and  considerations  of  self-respect  would  allow  us  to 
do  were  it  England,  or  France,  or  Spain,  or  any  other  of  the  great  mar- 
itime powers  that  had  made  this  demand,  even  though  their  iron-clads 
menaced  our  harbors  and  our  fleets  as  a  means  of  enforcing  it,  then  it 
would  seem  we  are  basing  our  proposed  action  on  a  principle  in  which 
is  involved  as  its  most  important  component  part  an  ingredient  of 
moral  cowardice  unworthy  the  representatives  of  a  great  nation. 


O 


